Medical Products Client
A leading medical products manufacturer whom we had successfully defended in a patent infringement action, turned to us when they were forced to recall their oxygen concentrators on account of incidents of fires. We instituted a breach of warranty action in federal court against the Italian manufacturer of the capacitors, and the New Jersey distributor of the capacitors. The defendants paid a substantial sum to our client in settlement of the action.
In one of the few false patent-marking cases to go to trial in the last 15 years, we achieved a complete defense jury verdict on behalf of our client. Prior to trial, we obtained summary judgment in favor of our client on the plaintiff’s breach of license claims. We also represented the client on the appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
Transportation Services Client
Bilicki Law successfully represented a subsidiary of an international transportation services client in the policing of its valuable trademark rights around the world. In the U.S., when competitors began selling vehicular lighting products using many of our client’s model numbers, we developed a cutting-edge protection strategy securing federal trademark and copyright protection for these model numbers, and then instituted actions, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition, aimed at preventing these competitors from deliberately trading off of our client’s goodwill and reputation, as embodied in its model numbers. The defendants agreed to, among other things, permanent injunctions and the purging of their offending products and marketing literature from the marketplace. In Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and India, we successfully directed litigation against rogue resellers of our client’s trademarked products, and stopped them from sourcing and selling counterfeit products.
A competing manufacturer was allegedly infringing on our client’s patent for a mechanical device used to spread aggregate on road surfaces. In addition to successfully defending the competitor’s summary judgment motion for non-infringement, we uncovered dramatic evidence of copying during the course of discovery and gained an admission of copying at the deposition of the defendant’s manufacturing engineer. Our client’s competitor agreed to a permanent injunction, and paid our client a portion of their lost profits for past infringement. As a result of the elimination of the infringer, our client became the sole supplier in the market for adjustable rubber trough spreaders.