Back to normal

Attorneys

Intellectual Property Litigation

Parr Brown handles intellectual property litigation for local, national and international clients in the areas of patent, copyright and trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, distribution and licensing disputes, manufacturing disputes, publishing disputes, domain name and other Internet-related disputes, and other matters.

We pursue legal options that offer clients the most efficient and economically fair resolution. In many cases where clients have been accused of infringement, we have researched the claims and responded with letters challenging the claims of infringement, often leading the accusers to drop their claims based on the strength of our analysis. In cases where our clients’ patent rights have been infringed, we have successfully prevented further infringements and procured substantial compensation.  When appropriate, we employ alternative dispute resolution strategies consistent with the client’s objectives, but we are equally qualified and staffed to pursue complex litigation strategies under the most adversarial of conditions.  Our aggressive and fully armed approach optimizes the ability to realize each client’s desire and in the most efficient way possible.

The firm has represented companies in an array of industries including software, computers, marketing, manufacturing, technology, medical, entertainment, mining, the Internet, consulting, telecommunications, recreation, and more.

The firm is frequently called upon to act as local counsel for national and international firms. It is not unusual for us to be named as lead counsel at some point in the litigation process by companies accustomed to national-caliber counsel. For instance, Parr Brown was engaged by manufacturer of moving targets in a patent matter pending in the Northern District of California that had been ongoing for several months. We were originally hired to defend non-patent related counterclaims brought by the accused infringer in the underlying patent case. After a few months of involvement, the client hired Parr Brown as lead counsel, for all purposes, noting that our expertise was equivalent to and our fees more favorable than the original lead counsel, a nationally recognized firm from California. Within months, the counter claims were reduced to an insignificant risk and the underlying patent case prepared for a summary judgment finding of infringement.

In another case, Parr Brown served as local counsel for over a year in a matter pending in Utah after lead counsel belatedly brought us in following an adverse Markman ruling. The client, a medical device manufacturer, insisted we assume the lead counsel role and, within two weeks of doing so, the plaintiff proposed a settlement with essentially the same terms the client desired. The proposed settlement followed a motion informing the court of the details of the client’s product. In the four years the case had been in progress, the court had not heard this information. The primary reasons the client cited for the change was Parr Brown's “national Silicon Valley” level of expertise and higher level of personalized attention at a far more reasonable cost.

Related Information:

Intellectual Property
Patent Litigation

 

Attorneys
Hill, Stephen J.
Hale, Stephen E. W.
Hess, Gregory M.
Welch, Terry E.
Hunt, Jeffrey J.
Hafen, Jonathan O.
Tolk, Bentley J.
Parry, D. Craig
Smith, Timothy B.
Reymann, David C.
Schofield, Jonathan R.
Johansen, Bryan S.
Pehrson, Chad S.
Shaw, LaShel