You need to get a lawyer because your intellectual property has been taken. Or your company has been sued. Perhaps an employee is stealing your trade secrets. It’s your job to manage the situation. And your company cannot afford to lose. But can your P&L survive paying $600-per-hour for a big-firm lawyer who hasn’t tried a case in three years plus the $350-per-hour associate who just recently passed the bar exam?
You have important questions to ask. How much will it cost through trial? Can it be dismissed? When was the last time the attorney you are considering gave a closing argument to a jury?
At McDole & Williams, we want you to ask us those questions. And, by the way, no, we don’t charge $600 an hour and we’ve given closing arguments in the last three months.
It’s what we do every day. Here is what we’re doing right now, and what we’ve been doing for the last 30-plus years:
Francesca’s Collections, Inc. v. Melissa Medina and Francesca’s Clothing Boutique, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:11-CV-307 S.D. Tex., Houston)
Bob Pettey and others at the firm represented the New Mexico defendants in this trademark infringement case where the plaintiff claims superior rights to the mark “Francesca” for fashion design products. Defendants objected to venue in the Southern District of Texas and the case was transferred to the U. S. District Court in Albuquerque, NM.
Francesca’s Collections, Inc. v. Melissa Medina and Francesca’s Clothing Boutique, Inc. (Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-00800-MCA-KBM D. NM., Albuquerque)
Bob Pettey and others at the firm represented the defendants in this trademark infringement case where the plaintiff claims superior rights to the mark “Francesca” for fashion design products.
Francesca’s Clothing Boutique, Inc. v. Francesca’s Collections, Inc. v. (Opposition No. 91200573 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board)
Bob Pettey, Zac Duffy and others at the firm represented the Opposer in contesting the Applicant’s application for a standard word trademark for the term “Francesca’s Collections.”
Hose Tech, LLC v. Lesswing, et al., (Civil Action No. 141-241690-09, 141st Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas)
Kenneth P. Kula successfully defended the defendants in case involving allegations of Misappropriation of Trade Secret, Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference of Prospective Business Relations, Breach of Contract and other business tort claims.
2525 Capital Group, LLC v. Dallas Home for Jewish Aged, Inc., (Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-01673-L, 2010 WL 2402892, N.D. Tex., Dallas)
Bob Pettey represented the owner of a nursing home in a declaratory judgment case seeking to confirm the owner’s rights to intellectual property. This case is unusual in that it was tried on stipulated facts. Under this procedure, the parties were only required to prepare a stipulation of facts and brief the issues before the Court. As a result, the client did not have to spend the time and money to come to Dallas from Florida for mediation, the parties did not have to prepare a pretrial order, out-of state witnesses were not required to come to Dallas for a trial, the parties saved the cost of a multi-day trial, and the client’s rights to the intellectual property were confirmed.
Redwaterpet O&GROFD v. Energytec, Inc., et al., (Cause No. 06-11021-A, 14th District Court, Dallas County, Texas and Adversary No. 09-04181, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division)
Bob Pettey is representing a limited liability company that was induced to invest significant sums in an oil and gas drilling and workover program. The case was filed in state court, was removed to bankruptcy court when one of the defendants filed for reorganization, and is expected to be remanded to state court for trial against the remaining defendant.
CitiCapital Commercial Corp. v. First National Bank of Fort Smith, (Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1673-L, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division)
Bob Pettey represented a national bank in a commercial dispute arising from a tri-partite lockbox agreement. After the first trial ended in a mistrial, the case was favorably settled just prior to picking a jury for the second trial.
United States Fallen Heroes Foundation v. American Fallen Warriors Memorial Foundation, et al. (Civil Action No. 3-11-CV-00872-P, N.D. Tex., Dallas)
In this pro bono case, the firm represented the defendants in litigation alleging violations of the Lanham Act, the Anti-Cybersquatting and Consumer Protection Act, and common law trademark infringement.
Jose Lara et al. v. PCM Construction Services, et al. (Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-01426, N.D. Tex., Dallas)
Steven E. Clark and Zac Duffy represent the defendants in a class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages.
Francesca’s Collections, Inc. v. Francesca’s Clothing Boutique, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-307 S.D. Tex., Houston)
The firm represented the defendants in this trademark infringement case where the plaintiff claims superior rights to the mark “Francesca” for fashion design products. Defendants will be responding to the recently-filed suit with a vigorous defense.
Key Energy, Inc. v. C.C. Forbes, LLC and Petron Industries, Inc. (Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-346-DF (E.D. Tex., Marshall)
Steven N. Williams is the partner in charge of this matter, and represents the defendant. The plaintiff, an oil field services provider, sued competitor for patent infringement on two patents alleging claims of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). Patents-in-suit relate to activity data equipment used with work over and oil field service vehicles. Defendant has asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and inequitable conduct. This case is set for jury trial in Marshall, Texas for June 6, 2011.
Spent Saddlery & Feeds v. Lone Star Silversmiths, Inc. (Civil Action No. 5:09-cv-00838-XR (W.D. Tex., San Antonio)
The firm represented the plaintiff in this a copyright infringement action involving western rodeo artwork used on belt buckles and related products that celebrate national, regional and local rodeo championships. A number of national and regional silversmiths copied the popular artwork without the client’s permission. The Court granted summary judgment for infringement in favor of our client, leaving damages and injunctive relief the only remaining issues. One defendant has settled on terms favorable for the client. Other defendants face motions for preliminary injunction and impoundment orders.
Main Hastings, Inc. v. Yomega Corporation (Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-00416 E.D. Tex., Marshall)
Steven N. Williams is the partner in charge of this matter, and represents the defendant. Plaintiff sued defendant Yomega Corporation for false patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292. Defendant has filed preliminary motions challenging the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s pleadings. The parties are in the early stages of the litigation.
SynQor, Inc. v. Artysen Technologies, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 2:07-CV-497-TJW E.D. Tex., Marshall
Steven N. Williams is the partner in charge of this matter, and represents one of the defendants. The plaintiff, a manufacturer of electronic component devices, sued competitors for patent infringement on five patents alleging claims of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). The patents involved unregulated and semi-regulated DC/DC bus converters. A three-week jury trial was completed in December, 2010. This case is currently on appeal.
ChemCal v. Delta Water Technologies, Inc. (Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-1978 N.D. Tex., Dallas)
The firm represented the defendants in this patent case where the plaintiff accused defendants of infringing a patent covering a software program for monitoring water quality at customer facilities. Defendants filed counterclaims demonstrating that the patent was invalid and unenforceable based on violation of the on-sale doctrine and inequitable conduct during the patent prosecution. The case settled in January 2011 on favorable terms for the client.
ALN Systems, Inc. v. Free Move Texas (Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-00323, N.D. Tex., Fort Worth)
The firm represented the plaintiff in this copyright infringement and DMCA take-down action against a competitor that copied thousands of the client’s photographed works of real estate properties from client’s internet site. By skillfully applying the DMCA, the competitor’s entire web page has been taken down, and the case settled with defendant agreeing to a permanent injunction and financial terms favorable to plaintiff.
Trover Group, Inc. v. Diebold Corporation (Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-00445-TJW, E.D. Tex.)
Steven N. Williams represented the plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff sued competitor for patent infringement on four patents alleging claims of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). The patents related to digital video recording and storage devices. The case settled favorably for Plaintiff.
Trover Group, Inc. v. Verint Systems, Inc. (Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-00532-CE, E.D. Tex.)
Steven N. Williams represented the plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff sued competitor for patent infringement on four patents alleging claims of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). The technology related to digital video recording and storage devices. The case settled favorably for Plaintiff.
Trover Group, Inc. v. Regions Bank (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-00547-CE (E.D. Tex.)
Steven N. Williams represented the plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff sued defendant bank for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 in case involving patents covering digital security video systems. The case settled favorably Plaintiff.
Ocular Research of Boston v. Allergan, Inc. (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-00385-CE (E.D. Tex.)
Steven N. Williams represented the plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff sued pharmaceutical company for patent infringement alleging claims of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). The technology related to a formula for treatment for dry eye conditions. The case settled favorably for Plaintiff.
Vision Advancement v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00455-LED E.D. Tex., Marshall
Steven N. Williams represented the plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff sued pharmaceutical company for patent infringement on two patents alleging claims of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). The technology related to multi-focal contact lenses. The case settled favorably for Plaintiff.
Steril-Aire USA, Inc. v. Dust Free, LLC (Civil Action No. 4:05-cv-156-MHS, E.D. Tex., Marshall)
Steven N. Williams represented the defendant in this matter. Plaintiff sued competitor for patent infringement on seven patents alleging claims of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). The technology related to systems used in air handling equipment to eliminate or reduce air born mold and bacteria. The case settled favorably for Defendant.
East Texas Technology Partners v. Apple, Inc., (Civil Action No. 3:04-cv-00281-B, N.D. Tex., Dallas)
Steven N. Williams represented the plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff sued computer manufacturer for patent infringement on one patent alleging claims of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). The technology related to analog modem devices. The case settled favorably for Plaintiff.
M&F Western Products, Inc. v. Lui (Civil Action No. 2:09-CV-00266-TWJ, E.D. Tex., Marshall)
Steven N. Williams represented the plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff sued defendant for copyright infringement based on four designs copyrighted and used by Plaintiff in connection with leather goods. The case settled favorably for Plaintiff.
American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc. (Civil Action No. 08-CV-0547, E.D. VA, Norfolk)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving a vibratory piledriver used for deep-penetration, heavy construction. Geoquip obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement. The case is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
Powell v. Home Depot USA Inc. (Civil Action No. 07-CV-80435, S.D. FL, West Palm Beach)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving a safety guard retrofitted onto radial arm saws for cutting dimensional lumber.
American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Bay Machinery Corporation (Civil Action No. 08-CV-1934, N.D. CA, San Francisco)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving a vibratory piledriver used for deep-penetration, heavy construction. Bay Machinery obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement. The case is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
KAB Enterprise Co. v. Ursich Electrical Products, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 07-CV-02864, N.D. IL, Chicago)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving self-locking female receptors for electrical cords sold within the store. The case settled on terms favorable to the client.
American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Hydraulic Power Systems, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 08-CV-0537, W.D. WA, Seattle)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving a vibratory piledriver used for deep-penetration, heavy construction. The parties agreed to stay the case after a summary judgment of non-infringement was obtained in a separate but related case, which is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Shoremaster, Inc. (Civil Action No. 06-CV-5008, W.D. MO)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving dock-pylon technology. The case settled on terms favorable to the client.
American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. J & G Sales, Inc. (Civil Action No. 08-CV-01253, S.D. TX, Houston)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving a vibratory piledriver used for deep-penetration, heavy construction. The parties agreed to stay the case after a summary judgment of non-infringement was obtained in a separate but related case, which is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
Spurgeon v. Scantlin (Civil Action No. 06-CV-00422, W.D. MO)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant rock star for copyright infringement, false copyright registration, breach of fiduciary duty, and various Lanham Act claims. The case settled favorably to the client.
American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Conmaco/Rector, L.P., et al. (Civil Action No. 08-CV-3826, E.D. LA, New Orleans)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving a vibratory piledriver used for deep-penetration, heavy construction. The parties agreed to stay the case after a summary judgment of non-infringement was obtained in a separate but related case, which is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Equipment Corporation of America (Civil Action No. 08-CV-00895, W.D. PA, Pittsburg)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving a vibratory piledriver used for deep-penetration, heavy construction. The parties agreed to stay the case after a summary judgment of non-infringement was obtained in a separate but related case, which is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Pile Equipment, Inc. (Civil Action No. 08-CV-00659, M.D. FL, Jacksonville)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving a vibratory piledriver used for deep-penetration, heavy construction. The parties agreed to stay the case after a summary judgment of non-infringement was obtained in a separate but related case, which is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. New England Construction Products (Civil Action No. 08-CV-11090, D. MA, Boston)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving a vibratory piledriver used for deep-penetration, heavy construction. The case settled favorably to the client.
Alvamar, Inc. v. Billings (Civil Action No. 07-C-93, Douglas County Court, Kansas)
Kenneth P. Kula represented the defendant in this action involving cybersquatting, trademark infringement and other business-related torts based on a dispute over the ownership and rights to a golf course and country club’s website. A bench trial was completed in April of 2007.
Sunlight Saunas, Inc. v. Sundance Sauna, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 04-CV-2597-KHV D. KS, Kansas City
Kenneth P. Kula represented the plaintiff in this action involving corporate defamation via the Internet, cybersquatting, trademark infringement and other business-related torts based on a disgruntled former employee’s defamatory website that was created, posted, and distributed to customers and potential customers of Sunlight Saunas, Inc. The client obtained a favorable jury verdict on it corporate defamation claim and was awarded $150,000 in punitive damages.
