Representative Cases

The following cases are representative of the litigation in which our attorneys have been retained (party represented in BOLD).

Copyright

Moran v. Ameritech Pulishing, Inc., et al.; Case No: 01-CV-138;
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - Bernie Moran, an artist from Green Bay, Wisconsin, owned the copyright in a pen and ink drawing of the Brown County Courthouse. Ameritech Publishing used the drawing in a Yellow Page® ad without Mr. Moran's permission. Mr. Moran's claim was settled several months after suit was commenced for $36,000.

Knappen v. Iowa Changers, Inc.; Case No: 07-CV-152;
U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Mr. Knappen, a software developer, filed a copyright infringement suit against Iowa Changers, Inc. A confidential settlement was reached.

Advertising Art Studios, Inc. v. Shore Tripps, LLC; Case No: 02-CV-856;
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - Advertising Art Studios, an ad agency, designed and developed an interactive website for Shore Tripps, a travel agency. Shore Tripps refused to pay the development costs even though it was using the site. A copyright infringement suit was commenced by Advertising Art. A settlement was reached which required Shore Tripps to make payment.

SLaM Architecture+Planning Inc. v. Pamperin, et al.; Case No: 06-CV-359;
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - SLaM, an architectural firm, brought a copyright infringement action against a builder, designer, and homeowner for building a home which infringed one of SLaM's custom home designs. Confidential settlements were reached with all Defendants.

Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Cheung, et al.; Case No: 06-CV-5533;
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York - The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, a trade association representing Wisconsin ginseng farmers, commenced a trademark infringement action against a wholesaler of ginseng and products containing ginseng, such as tea and candy. A confidential settlement was reached.

Tanel Corporation v. Tommy Hilfiger Corp., et al; Case No: 03-CV-2987;
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - Tanel Corporation, a company which designs athletic footwear, sued Tommy Hilfiger Corp. for trademark infringement. A confidential settlement was reached.

General Pet Supply, Inc. v. OurPet's Company; Opposition No: 91158622;
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board - General Pet successfully opposed the registration of the "Our Cat's Choice Litter" trademark by OurPet's Company, which General Pet considered confusingly similar to its registered "Cat's Choice" mark.

Baumgartner Cheese Store Inc. v. Raettig, et al.; Case No: 03-CV-769;
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - Baumgartner Cheese brought suit against Defendants for trade dress infringement involving a restaurant which Defendants opened in Milwaukee. A confidential settlement was reached.

Plus Relocations Services, Inc. v. Starck, et al.; Case No: 07-CV-588;
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania - Plus Relocations filed suit against Stark, et al., for unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and for illicit use of an internet domain name under section 43(d) of the Lanham Act. A confidential settlement was reached.

Slaby v. Berndt, et al.; Case No: 06-CV-250;
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin - Ken Slaby is the inventor of a skid loader attachment for cutting silage on a dairy farm. Berlon Industries is a manufacturer of after market attachments for skid loaders. Berlon manufactured and sold silage cutter attachments which infringed two of Slaby's patents. A patent infringement case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for Mr. Slaby. After the court enhanced the damages due to a finding of willful infringement and awarded Slaby attorney fees, judgment in excess of $830,000 was entered against Berlon. An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Washington, D.C., was filed by Defendants. Mr. Slaby prevailed in the appellate court on summary affirmance.

Nifty Home Products, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc.; Case No: 08-CV-921;
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Nifty commenced suit against Kraft Foods, alleging infringement of a design patent for a coffee pod turnstile. A confidential settlement was reached before a responsive pleading was filed.

OverEnd Technologies, LLC v. Invista S.A.R.L., et al.; Case No: 05-CV-800;
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - OverEnd designed and manufactured unwinding equipment used in the manufacture of disposable diapers. Invista (owned by Koch Industries, one of the largest privately held conglomerates in the world) acquired competing technology in the form of a pre-existing patent. Invista took the position that OverEnd's unwinder infringed its patent. OverEnd filed suit, seeking a declaration of non-infringement, a finding that Invista's patent was invalid, and requesting damages for Invista's alleged violation of U.S. antitrust laws. OverEnd was successful in defeating, in its entirety, a motion to dismiss filed by Invista. A confidential settlement was reached shortly thereafter.

Vent Matic Company Incorporated v. Perlick Corporation; Case No: 03-CV-307;
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin - Vent Matic was the assignee of a patent for a beer faucet/tap for use in bars and restaurants. Perlick manufactures restaurant and bar equipment. After a joint venture between the parties ended, disputes arose over the ownership of certain issued patents and of inventions for which patent applications were pending. A settlement was reached on the eve of trial which clarified title and included negotiated licenses, allowing Perlick to use certain inventions in exchange for payment of royalties to Vent Matic.