OCFB has experience litigating patents in the fields of telecommunications, textiles, nonwovens, electronics and mechanical devices. We have also been counsel in numerous trademark, copyright and unfair competition cases.
MISAPPROPRIATION & COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION
Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 2011)
Our client, Theflyonthewall.com, is an on-line financial news publisher that reports, among other news, stock recommendations by Wall Street investment firms, including Barclays Capital, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley (the “Banks”). The Banks commenced an action in U.S. District Court seeking to enjoin our client’s publication based on the common law doctrine of “hot news” misappropriation.
After trial, the district court granted an injunction in favor of the Banks imposing restrictions on our client’s publication of the Banks’ recommendations. The case garnered substantial interest because the injunction had implications for the entire financial news media, including news aggregators in general. Google, the Associated Press and many other interested parties, submitted Amici briefs. The Court of Appeals granted our application for stay of the injunction during the pendency of the appeal. In its decision on the merits, the Court of Appeals vacated the district court injunction and unanimously ruled in favor of our client. Our client continues to publish its financial news feed.
Schwartz v. Edelman Shoe, Inc. (SDNY)
Copyright infringement against defendant’s use of our client’s photographs in an advertising campaign. We obtained a favorable settlement for our client.
PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION
Aerotel, Ltd. v. Radiant Telecom Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
We successfully defeated defendant’s motion to dismiss this patent infringement Complaint based on the alleged divestiture of patent rights under Israeli law.
Aerotel, Ltd. v. IDT Corp., Aerotel, Ltd. v. Primus Telecommunications Group, Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
We successfully defeated defendant’s motion to stay a patent infringement action pending resolution of co-pending litigation in Israel concerning ownership of the invention claimed by the patent-in-suit.
Aerotel, Ltd. v. Verizon Communications Inc., 234 F.R.D. 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
We successfully defeated Verizon’s motion to consolidate this breach of contract action with co-pending patent infringement actions involving the same patent. The case was ultimately settled upon favorable terms that are subject to confidentiality restrictions.
Provo Steel & Supply Co. v. Heritage Safe Co. (District of Utah, Central Division)
We asserted a claim for infringement of a patent concerning a gun safe, and favorably settled the case, with the defendant stipulating to an injunction.
Saeilo, Inc. d/b/a Kahr Arms v. Colt’s Manufacturing Co., Inc., 26 Fed. Appx. 966 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
We successfully defended Colt’s Manufacturing Company in this patent infringement action involving a patent related to low profile handguns. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court denied plaintiff’s motion, and granted our motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of our client.
Aerotel, Ltd. v. Sprint Corp., 100 F. Supp. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
We successfully defeated Sprint Corporation’s motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The case was ultimately settled upon favorable terms that are subject to confidentiality restrictions.
Pfizer Inc. v. Anhui Hefei Flavour Factory et al., 853 F. Supp. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
We represented a manufacturer located and doing business in the People’s Republic of China, which manufactured a flavor enhancer, known as maltol, by a process that Pfizer alleged was in violation of its patent. We successfully moved to dismiss the patent claim against the foreign manufacturer for failure to state a claim on the ground that 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) does not apply to a foreign manufacturer who does not itself import the allegedly infringing product into the United States.
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION
Brooks Brothers Group, Inc. v. WS Foster & Son Limited (SDNY)
Action for trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, false designation of origin and unfair competition against our client’s for use of logo on bespoke shoes. We obtained a favorable settlement permitting our client to continue using the logo.
Generation X Int’l Corp. v. No Excuses Sportswear, Ltd., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4693 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
In a civil action for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition and dilution arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., and trademark infringement, unfair competition, injury to reputation and dilution arising under the statutory and common law of the State of New York, we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant clothing manufacturer from manufacturing in or importing into the United States any jeans bearing the “NO X” logo, the “GX” logos or logos confusingly similar thereto.
TMT North America, Inc. v. Magic Touch GmbH, 124 F.3d 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
In a dispute regarding ownership of the trademark THE MAGIC TOUCH between a German company that developed an image transfer paper product and an American company that distributed it, we successfully obtained a stay pending appeal of a preliminary injunction issued by a Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division preliminarily enjoining the German company from using THE MAGIC TOUCH trademark or asserting any ownership rights to them, and then obtained vacatur and remand of the preliminary injunction outright, the Court of Appeals finding that any acquiescence by the German company could not have forfeited all rights to the marks, but rather could only have put the American company on equal standing regarding use of the marks.
Z-International, Inc. v. Z Line Int’l, Inc. et al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13188 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
In a trademark infringement action, after entry of Default Judgment against the defendant, we successfully obtained an Order of Contempt and sanctions against the defendant for violating the Default Judgment and a subsequent Post-Mediation Order of Discontinuance.
Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Central Venture, Inc. d/b/a/ East 33rd Typewriter and Electronics et al., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12404 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)
We successfully obtained summary judgment for defendant in an action asserting federal claims alleging trademark infringement under the Lanham Act § 32(a), unfair competition under the Lanham Act § 42(a), and violation of the Tariff Act § 526, and dismissal of state law claims alleging unfair competition, dilution of property rights, deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference with contract.
We have also been counsel in cases involving alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the securities market, which have resulted in many large settlements and judgments against insiders and established legal precedent in a number of areas. Often these cases also involve complex issues arising from director and officer liability insurance policies.
Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499 (2d. Cir. 2007)
$6 million judgment against former CEO of commodities manufacturer for violation of Section 16(b) short swing profits. Established law that courts need not accept SEC filings as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss.
Klein v. Salvi, 115 Fed. Appx 515 (2d. Cir. 2004)
$10.75 million settlement from officer of pharmaceutical company for alleged insider trading.
Schaeffer v. Soros (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
$8 million settlement in suit against investment company manager in case that limited the activities of an investment group under Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act.
Gwzozdinsky v. Magten Asset Management, 106 F.3d 4569 (2d Cir. 1997)
Limitations imposed on short swing profits recoveries in a case concerning derivatives trading by insiders
DiLorenzo v. Murphy, 443 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2006)
Defines liability for insiders for receipt of “earn-out shares” under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Klein v. Central Florida Investment, 642 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (S.D. Fla. 2009)
Defined insider liability for short sale options trading.