C. Wook Pak

C. Wook Pak

also known as Wook Pak

5.0
Rating: 7.1

Licensed for 19 years

Intellectual property Lawyer at Los Angeles, CA
Practice Areas: Intellectual Property

12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA

About C.

Biography

Practice Areas

1

Practice Area

Intellectual Property 100%

All aspects of intellectual property law including procurement, enforcement, and defense of patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

20 years

100%

Fees and Rates

We have not found any cost information for this lawyer


Looking for an attorney? Avvo can help.

search module image

Search our directory

Quickly connect with top attorneys through our legal directory to get help with your legal issue.

chat module image

Avvo's live chat agents can help coordinate a consultation with a local attorney.

Chat with a live agent who can match you with the right attorney for your legal needs.

Chat with

Licenses

Licensed in California for 19 years

State: California

Acquired: 2006

Active

No misconduct found

Location

Cislo & Thomas, LLP

12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA, 90025

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

C. Wook Pak's Reviews

Avvo Review Score

5.0 /5.0

5 Client Reviews

Filter Avvo Reviews (5) Refine reviews to match your needs. Use the filters to quickly surface reviews that align with your case or priorities.

Showing 1 - 4 of 4 reviews | Practice Area Knowledge

Posted by Bruce | October 05, 2014 | Patent Application

Review C. Wook Pak

Dr. Wook Pak has represented me for close to two years. He is accessible, professional, and extremely knowledgeable. I am an Education Specialist. This is my first patent. Specifically it is an educational tool designed to teach children and adults with cognitive development deficits. Dr. Pak has men...tored me through this complicated process that ultimately involved many individuals. Without Wook I would not have my patent and I would not be close to a product launch. I recommend Dr. Pak without hesitation.

Posted by Bill | December 19, 2013 | Patent Application

Effective Patent Attorney

Wook worked with our business to prepare applications for new inventions. He demonstrated good flexibility working with our engineering notes and CAD drawings, while crafting strong yet reasonable claim language. Wook was very responsive when we had questions. His technical background is solid and... current, and he has been super pleasant to work with. We have worked in the past with patent attorneys who treated the USPTO as an adversary. This has tended to create drawn-out prosecution of applications, with accompanying fees. It's been very refreshing to work with Wook and his firm, Cislo and Thomas, due to their strategy of working with the USPTO examiner. Our patent applications have progressed with far less drama, and we are very pleased with the results.

Posted by Kenneth | December 10, 2013 | Patent Application

Very diligent and competent attorney

I am a civil litigator. I hired Mr. Pak to draft a utility patent application for an invention that I created to assist trial lawyers in jury selection. He worked quickly to get the application filed timely and the content was excellent. He also filed for copyright protection for the design of the... product. I am very satisfied with his services.

Posted by Drop Stop, LLC | September 02, 2013 | Intellectual Property

Dr. Wook Pak is the patent attorney you're looking for!

Dr. Wook Pak has been a beacon of light in this cold, hard world of patent law. First and foremost he is a true professional. Sharp, creative, and actually cares about the client as much as the task at hand. We've worked with several attorneys in patent law; attention to detail is tantamount to su...ccess. We experienced the negative side of this with other patent attorneys in ways that were extremely painful, time consuming, and costly. Dr. Pak crafts his documents as if it were his own business - dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't.' We're pretty passionate guys, and Dr. Pak has handled our most heated moments with class and grace. He finds his way through every wall we have encountered. One meeting with him and you'll instantly feel like your in very capable hands.

See All Client Reviews

C. Wook Pak's Lawyer Endorsements

Endorse C.
Randy Keng-Fan Chang headshot
Randy Chang

Intellectual property lawyer | Sep 03

Relationship: Fellow lawyer in community

"Dr. Pak is one of the brightest IP attorney in his field. His professionalism, combined with his sincere attention towards his clients makes him one of the best in his field."

View All Endorsements

No Endorsement Data Available Yet
This attorney hasn't created any attorney endorsements recently on Avvo.

Experience

Rating:  7.1 (Very Good)

Honors

2005

First Honors in Copyright Law, Loyola Law School

Work Experience

2006 - Present

Partner, Cislo & Thomas, LLP

2005 - 2005

Legal Intern, Allergan, Inc.

2004 - 2004

Legal Intern, Allergan, Inc.

Associations

2017 - Present

Korean American Bar Association of Southern California

Member

2014 - Present

Provisors

Member

2006 - Present

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Registered Attorney

2002 - 2006

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Registered Agent

Sample of Legal Cases

Lifetime Industries, Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc. (Appeal)

District Court case reversed

Lifetime Industries, Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.

Case dismissed due to settlement.

Colt International Clothing, Inc. v. Quasar Science, LLC et al.

SonoSim, Inc. v. Medaphor Limited

Case dismissed due to settlement.

Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc. et al.

Diopsys, Inc. v. Konan Medical USA, Inc.

Lifetime Industries, Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.

Case dismissed

Trim-Lok, Inc. v. Liftime Industries, Inc.

case transferred to Indiana

Jeffrey Simon et al. v. RCR International et al.

Case dismissed due to settlement

Nimble Software, LLC v. ClearPractice LLC

Case dismissed due to settlement.

ClearPractice, LLC v. Nimble, LLC et al.

Case dismissed and transferred to California

Thuan Phong Company Ltd v. SF Supermarket

Case dismissed due to settlement.

Silverlit Toys Manufactory LTD v. Ecoman Corporation

Case dismissed due to settlement.

FastCap LLC v. Atlantic, Inc.

Case dismissed due to settlement.

See More Legal Cases

Education

2006

Loyola Law School

JD - Juris Doctor

2003

University of California - Riverside

PhD - Doctorate

1995

Oregon St Univ

BS - Bachelor of Science

Speaking Engagements

2019

Med Tech Marketing Summit

Dispelling Inventors' Myths and Misconceptions About Patents

2017

Provisors Cannabis Affinity Group

Patentable Subject Matter

2017

Provisors Cannabis Affinity Group

Physiology and Pharmacology of Cannabinoids

2016

Second Annual Supreme Court Review

Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics - Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement

2012

US-Korea Conference on Science, Technology and Entrepreneurship

Accelerating Examination of Patent Applications

Publications

2019

California Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) Patents & Trade Secrets (Chapter 2) of Internet Law and Practice in California

2009

Languages

Korean

Avvo Rating

Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.

What determines Avvo Rating?
  • Experience & background Years licensed, work experience, education
  • Legal community recognition Peer endorsements, associations, awards
  • Legal thought leadership Publications, speaking engagements
  • Discipline Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.
Avvo Rating Levels
10.0 - 9.0 Superb8.9 - 8.0 Excellent7.9 - 7.0 Very Good6.9 - 6.0 Good5.9 - 5.0 Average4.9 - 4.0 Concern3.9 - 3.0 Caution2.9 - 2.0 Strong Caution1.9 - 1.0 Extreme Caution