- Representative Matters
- Honors & Awards
Charles E. Cantine is actively involved in all aspects of intellectual property counseling, including patent, trademark and trade secret litigation, drafting and negotiating international and domestic licensing, distribution and supply agreements, drafting opinions, and drafting and prosecution of patent applications.
As a litigator, Mr. Cantine has participated in all aspects of discovery, pretrial preparations and submissions, and trial. He has served as trial counsel before federal trial and appellate courts throughout the United States, including the district courts for New York, New Jersey, Texas, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Florida, Massachusetts and Minnesota, as well as before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In addition to his litigation experience, Mr. Cantine also performs substantial counseling on intellectual property matters, including advising clients on the development and management of international and domestic intellectual property portfolios involving patents, trademarks and trade secrets to protect his client’s research and development activities, commercial products and strategies. Mr. Cantine also advises his clients on freedom-to-operate matters, including validity and noninfringement opinions, due diligence investigations and competitor portfolio analysis.
Mr. Cantine's roster of clients includes companies in such technology areas as computer hardware and software, telecommunications, digital data storage devices including high density magnetic recording mediums, implantable identification transponders and other related geo-position tracking devices and systems, eye protective coatings and products, chemical compositions, medical devices, computer network infrastructure management and industrial automation.
REPRESENTATIVE MATTERSHis recent matters and cases have included:
- PODS Enterprises, Inc. v. U-Haul, Inc. – Represented PODS in a trademark infringement action relating to portable moving and storage containers. First chair in a two week jury trial resulting in a verdict of more than $60 million for our client, finding for our client on all counts.
- XpertUniverse v. Cisco Systems, Inc. – Represented XpertUniverse in a patent infringement and fraud case. First chair in a two week jury trial resulting in a verdict of over $70 million for our client, finding that the patents were valid and infringed and that Cisco had committed fraud. The court sustained the jury verdict with regard to the patent claims but reversed as to the fraud claim. The National Law Journal ranked the $70 million jury verdict in the top 5 IP verdicts in 2013. Case is on appeal.
- Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Richards Manufacturing Co., et al. – Represented Richards Manufacturing in a theft of trade secret and breach of duty of loyalty case relating to rubber injection molding processes for high voltage underground electrical connectors. Second chair in a five-week jury trial. Presented the direct testimony of four expert witnesses on behalf of our client, and cross examined two expert witnesses and the plaintiff’s primary fact witness. Case settled.
- Axcess International, Inc. v. Savi Technologies, Inc. – Representing Axcess in a patent infringement action on two patents relating to active Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology for container tracking. The action is pending in the Northern District of Texas.
- PODS Enterprises, Inc. v. ABF Freight System, Inc. – Represented PODS in a trademark infringement action relating to portable moving storage containers. The action is pending in the Middle District of Florida.
- Synthes (USA) v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. – Represented Synthes in a patent infringement action on three patents relating to bone plates for fracture fixation.
- Digital Angel Corp. v. Datamars SA, et al. – Represented Digital Angel in a patent infringement action on a patent relating to passive Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology for companion animal tracking.
- SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc,. et al. – Represented Gemstar (third party defendant and counterclaim plaintiff) in a patent infringement action on three patents relating to on-screen program guides.
- Paradise Creations, Inc. v. Westminster International Co. Inc. – Represented Paradise in a patent infringement action relating to ink composition for use in erasable markers.
- Turn-Key Technology v. Fuji Photo Film USA, et al. – Represented Fuji in a patent infringement action relating to plastic injection molding processes.
HONORS & AWARDS
Mr. Cantine has been recognized by New York Super Lawyers. He has also been nationally recommended by The Legal 500 United States.
- "Business Method Patents Under Attack – Is State Street in Jeopardy?" Stroock Special Bulletin, February 27, 2008
- "In re Seagate Technology, LLC: Federal Circuit Narrows Willfulness, Limits Waiver and Abandons the Duty of Care," Stroock Client Memo, September 10, 2007
- "A Patent Law Perspective: Is Expedited Approval of Biogenerics Around the Corner?" LabtoWallStreet, Issue 3, 2004
- "File Early and File Often," Patent Strategy & Management, January 2004
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
New York, 2000
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2000; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2000; U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2001
PATENT ADMISSIONSU.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 1999
J.D., Fordham University School of Law, 1999; Member, International Law Journal
B.S., The Catholic University of America, 1986
NEWSBack To Full Bio
Stroock Receives High Honors in 13 Practices from The Legal 500 United States 2017: 37 Stroock Attorneys Recognized
June 2, 2017|Press Release
Charles E. Cantine quoted in "Storage Companies in one of 'Largest Ever' Trademark Settlements"
October 19, 2016|As mentioned in: World Intellectual Property Review
Charles E. Cantine quoted in "Corrective Advertising for PODS in $41.4M Settlement of Trademark Infringement Suit"
October 17, 2016|As mentioned in: Daily Business Review
Charles E. Cantine quoted in "U-Haul to Pay PODS $41M Trademark Settlement"
October 14, 2016|As mentioned in: Managing Intellectual Property
Charles E. Cantine quoted in "Clearwater Firm's Trademark Battle with U-Haul Ends with Multimillion-Dollar Settlement"
October 14, 2016|As mentioned in: Tampa Bay Business Journal
Stroock Secures One of the Largest Trademark Verdicts On Record
October, 13, 2016
Charles E. Cantine quoted in "U-Haul To Pay $41M To Settle PODS Trademark Clash"
October 11, 2016|As mentioned in: Law360
90 Stroock Attorneys Recognized as 2016 Super Lawyers and “Rising Stars”
September 22, 2016|Press Release
Stroock Attorneys and Practices Recommended by The Legal 500 United States 2016
June 15, 2016|Press Release
Stroock Mentioned in "U-Haul Asks 11th Circ. To Overturn $66M 'Pods' TM Verdict"
December 18, 2015|As mentioned in: Law360
Stroock Attorneys Recognized as Super Lawyers and "Rising Stars"
September 16, 2015
Stroock Secures "Top 100 Verdict" with $60.7 Million Win for PODS
March 30, 2015
Stroock Intellectual Property Attorneys mentioned in "PODS Wants $6.5M In Fees After TM Win Against U-Haul"
March 26, 2015|As mentioned in: Law360
Stroock Intellectual Property Attorneys mentioned in "U-Haul Loses New Trial Bid After $60M Trademark Verdict"
March 11, 2015|As mentioned in: Law360
Stroock Client XpertUniverse Inc. Lands $70 Million Jury Verdict in Fraud and Patent Infringement Case Against Tech Giant Cisco Systems Inc.
March 27, 2013
Stroock Names New Partner and Special Counsel
January 8, 2013
Stroock Names New Partners and Special Counsel
January 9, 2007
PUBLICATIONSBack To Full Bio
“Business Method Patents Under Attack – Is State Street in Jeopardy?”
February 27, 2008|Stroock Special Bulletin
- “In re Seagate Technology, LLC: Federal Circuit Narrows Willfulness, Limits Waiver and Abandons the Duty of Care”September 10, 2007|Stroock Client Memo
- "A Patent Law Perspective: Is Expedited Approval of Biogenerics Around the Corner?"Issue 3, 2004|LabtoWallStreet
- "File Early and File Often"January 2004|Patent Strategy & Management
- “In re Seagate Technology, LLC: Federal Circuit Narrows Willfulness, Limits Waiver and Abandons the Duty of Care”