With a well-established record of enforcing and defending intellectual property rights, Stroock’s intellectual property litigators counsel clients involved in disputes over patent, trademark, copyright and other intellectual property rights before state and federal courts, the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the International Trade Commission. Stroock’s intellectual property litigators have met success in obtaining verdicts with significant awards. In 2013, the practice was awarded by Texas Lawyer’s Verdicts Hall of Fame for its excellence in intellectual property. In addition, many of the intellectual property attorneys have been recognized by Chambers USA, Best Lawyers, Super Lawyers and Who’s Who Legal.
Our clients range from individual inventors and emerging businesses to large domestic and multinational corporations. We represent companies whose businesses center on high-technology innovations, as well as traditional businesses with little or no technology. Client industries include electronics, optics, computer software and hardware, telecommunications, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, biotechnology, medical devices, financial services and trading, consumer products, food products, refining, manufacturing, textiles, fashion, publishing, digital rights management, entertainment, multimedia, retailing and a variety of service industries.
Our patent attorneys are actively involved in litigating cases, both on behalf of clients asserting patent rights and those defending against charges of infringement. We also counsel clients concerning trade dress, trade names and domain names worldwide, as well as a variety of related matters, including litigating cases for both plaintiffs and defendants involving trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, dilution of famous marks, product copying and domain name disputes in the United States and abroad. We have also enforced our clients’ copyrights in the United States and abroad, as well as defended their rights against claims of copyright infringement.
Stroock Secures One of the Largest Trademark Verdicts On Record
October, 13, 2016
"Client Fabricates Evidence, Perjures Testimony — Now What?"
June 20, 2014|Law360
"Supreme Court Holds That Isolated DNA Is Not Patent Eligible, But Complimentary DNA (cDNA) Is Patent Eligible"
Summer 2013 – Volume V – Issue 3|Bloomberg BNA’s Books Monitor
"Willfulness and Liability, Separate But Equal?"
August 1, 2013|Intellectual Property Strategist
"Second Circuit Deals Blow to Rights of Broadcasters Under the Copyright Act"
April 16, 2013|Stroock Special Bulletin
"Patentability of Business Methods: Decoding the Federal Circuit’s CLS and Bancorp Decisions"
Volume 25, Number 2, February 2013|Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal
"The Saga of Omega v. Costco Wholesalers Corp."
February 2012|IP Strategist
"Second Circuit: You Make It, They Can Break It: The Fly on the Wall Eludes the Ghost
of INS v. AP"
June 23, 2011|Stroock Special Bulletin
"Reviewing Joint Infringement"
May 9, 2011|IP Law 360
Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot
October 2010|Bloomberg Law Reports -Intellectual Property
"Protect Your Data with the Hot News Doctrine"
May 1, 2010|Managing Intellectual Property
“'Hot News' Doctrine Protects Investment Firms’ Actionable Equity Recommendations”
March 22, 2010|Stroock Special Bulletin
“Tafas v. Doll: Where Is the USPTO Headed?”
May 2009|The Intellectual Property Strategist
“The Federal Circuit’s Wake-Up Call After Its Decision in Kubin: Biotech and Pharma Patents Not Immune to ‘Obvious to Try’”
May 8, 2009|Life Sciences Law & Industry
"H&R Block" and "Every Penny Counts" Cases Ask “Where’s the Machine?”
March 20, 2009|Stroock Special Bulletin
"Sundance v. DeMonte: Federal Circuit Overrules District Court’s Holding Of Non-obviousness"
March 2009|The Intellectual Property Strategist
“‘Hot News’ for Financial Index Issuers: Southern District Decision in The Associated Press v. All Headline News Corp.”
March 4, 2009|Stroock Special Bulletin
“In re Bilski: Federal Circuit Addresses Standard for Patentability of Business Methods”
November 5, 2008|Stroock Intellectual Property Practice Group Special Bulletin
“Enforcement Issues Raised By Geographically Descriptive Marks: The Hypothetical Case of the Fictitious Emerild Island”
June 2008|The Intellectual Property Strategist, Volume 14, Number 9
“Gone in a Flash: What Your Employees May Be Storing on That iPod and Its Relationship to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act”
May 2008|Privacy & Data Security Law Journal
“Gone in a Flash: What Your Employees May Be Storing on that iPod and
Its Relationship to the Computer Fraud And Abuse Act”
May 22, 2008|Stroock Intellectual Property Practice Group Special Bulletin
“TiVo v. EchoStar: Federal Circuit Does The Time Warp”
May 2008|The Intellectual Property Strategist, Volume 14, Number 8
“Standards Capture: A Threat to Standard Setting Organizations?”
April 2008|Stroock Special Bulletin
“KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.: Throttling Back a Rigid Approach to Obviousness”
May 9, 2007|Stroock Special Bulletin
“eSpeed Patent Ruled Unenforceable”
April 10, 2007|Stroock Special Bulletin
"Celebrity Rights of Publicity: For Sale, But Not Necessarily Available For Creditors"
March 2007, Volume 19, Number 3|Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal
“New Challenges Of Proving ‘Market Power’ In Patent Tying Cases”
March 2007|The Practical Litigator
"Intellectual Property Protection for Financial Indexes, ETFs and Other Financial Products"
August 3, 2006|Stroock Special Bulletin
"Patent Injunctions: Quo Vadis"
August 1, 2006|The Intellectual Property Strategist
"The Lessons of Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx Inc."
June 26, 2006|Stroock Special Bulletin