I have conducted numerous trials and hearings in many federal courts and in the Patent Office. For example, I recently conducted a claim construction hearing against two large law firms representing two large corporations. The single patent in question is in litigation that I have handled against various defendants for fifteen years. Five—yes, five—reexaminations were requested, requiring several years and an appeal in the Patent Office. I achieved confirmation of the claims asserted against the defendants, and the litigation has resumed.
I do all types of intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark claims, as well as associated causes of action that may arise in the course of litigation, including tortious interference, breach of contract, unfair competition and the like.
My cases have taken me to more than twenty federal district courts, as well as to state courts. These courts include districts that have the heaviest and most complex caseloads of intellectual property litigation, such as the Northern District of California, the District of Delaware, and the Northern District of Illinois. For the full list, please see my resume. I have also done multidistrict litigation, for example, Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
There is more than one way to pay for litigation. The alternates to conventional hourly billing have advantages: you are not surprised by large legal bills you didn’t expect. You can intelligently budget. One option is contingent fee litigation, where we advance our time and are paid by sharing in any recovery that results. Contingent fee litigation insures that your lawyer is not churning your case simply to increase fees based on billable hours.
Another option is a fixed fee. Such an arrangement is especially suited for the defense of litigation. A fixed fee is determined by agreement before the case begins, based on the risk and complexity of the case and a joint assessment of the probability of a successful conclusion. Fees will be paid in equal installments over a period of months. With this arrangement, the litigant knows exactly what it is getting into, without the open-ended fees incurred with many larger firms. You know in advance what fees you will incur so you can budget for your legal fees accordingly. Your suit will not be an indefinite bonanza for lawyers.
No matter whether you choose the contingent or fixed fee arrangement, you will know what you will have to spend before the start of your case.
I have opposed many of the largest law firms in the United States including, for example, Jones Day, Kirkland & Ellis, Winston & Strawn, Foley & Lardner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Baker & McKenzie, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Perkins & Coie, Fagre Baker Daniels, Morrison and Foerster and many others in both litigation and Patent Office reviews.