Marc Lorelli

Kitch LLC v. Deejayzoo, LLC (Jury Trial – C.D. California): A federal jury in Los Angeles cleared beauty brand, Kitsch, represented by Brooks Kushman, from accusations that shower caps it makes infringe a New York designer’s patented design and related trademarks. After about an hour, eight jurors indicated they were siding with Kitsch, which had sued in 2019 seeking a ruling that its products did not infringe a pair of patents and trademark-protected marketing language, owned by a company called Deejayzoo. Only one of the two patents that Deejayzoo put forward made it to trial. Brooks Kushman attorneys also proved that Deejayzoo didn’t have the right to the descriptive slogan Kitsch used and that there was no evidence of confusion.

Magnadyne Corporation v. Winegard Company, USDC, N.D. Indiana, Case No. 3:20-cv-00722.  Brooks brought a patent infringement action brought for our client against Winegard for an external vehicle antenna housing and installation method.  The defendants filed a request for an ex parte reexamination and the claims were initially rejected. Brooks successfully argued for patentability of the asserted claims before the Patent Office.  The matter was resolved shortly thereafter.

NS Brands v. Mastronardi Produce Ltd., et al., USDC, W.D. Texas, Case No. 5:21-cv-00726.  Our client NS Brands sued defendant for trademark infringement of its distinctive Cherubs packaging for grape tomatoes. NS Brands filed a motion for a Preliminary Injunction and the matter was resolved shortly thereafter.

Terex South Dakota, Inc. et al v. Sinoboom North America, LLC – (Preliminary Injunction and Consent Permanent Injunction – S.D. Texas) – Represented Terex Corporation in a trademark infringement matter regarding the sale of BLUE mobile elevating work platforms (“MEWPs”). After learning of a Chinese manufacturer attempting to enter the U.S. market, Marc filed a lawsuit and preliminary injunction motion to stop defendant’s sale of Blue MEWPs. The Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff’s motion and halted the sale and use of Sinoboom’s BLUE MEWPs. The case shortly settled in favor of our client, Terex Corporation. This decision is the only preliminary injunction decision involving a product coloring.  This is the first known preliminary injunction granted for a single-color trademark.

Ford Motor Company v. TMC Fuel Injection, LLC (PTAB) – Representing Ford as a defendant in a patent lawsuit involving fuel injection technologies. BK employed IPR proceedings to obtain admissions regarding claim scope that led the district court to grant summary judgment of non-infringement, which the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Ford Global Technologies, LLC v. New World International, Inc. (Jury Trial – N.D. Texas): Trial counsel for plaintiff Ford in a patent lawsuit involving thirteen design patents. Obtained favorable summary judgment, claim construction, and other pre-trial rulings. The jury found willful infringement of all thirteen patents and against all invalidity challenges and awarded Ford the defendants’ total profits from the infringement. Obtained an award of almost $3 million in profits and attorneys’ fees as well as the entry of a permanent injunction. The judgement was affirmed on appeal. Case No: 3:17-cv-03201-N

JM Enterprises, Inc. V. The Ames Companies, Inc. (Summary Judgment – M.D. Pennsylvania): Counsel for Defendant The AMES Companies in a patent infringement action brought by JM Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiff alleged that AMES’ shovel products infringed a patent covering technology for attaching handles to shovel blades. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for client within four months. Case No: 1:17-cv-01118

Automotive Body Parts Assoc. v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Obtained summary judgment for Ford Global on plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claims concerning Ford Global’s design patents. Case No. 2:15-cv-10137

In re Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles (ITC): Trial counsel for Ford Motor Company in multi-patent investigation directed to hybrid electric vehicles. Settlement after trial. Inv. No. 337-TA-1042

TMC Fuel Injection System, LLC v. Ford Motor Company (Summary Judgment – E.D. Pennsylvania) Lead counsel for defendant Ford in a patent infringement action involving automotive fuel injection systems. Lead counsel for numerous inter partes reviews filed by Ford based on obviousness. Ford used the proceedings before the Patent Office to encourage the district court to construe the claims similarly and grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor. Obtained affirmance on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Case No. 2:12-cv-04971

Innovation Ventures, LLC d/b/a Living Essentials, v. N.V.E., Inc. (Jury Trial – E.D. Michigan): Represented Plaintiff Living Essentials in trademark infringement action involving plaintiff’s 5-Hour ENERGY trademark. The jury found that Defendant N.V.E.’s sale of a competing product named “6 Hour Power” infringed Plaintiff’s trademark and awarded $10.6 million in damages. The jury also awarded an additional $11.5 million in disgorgement of N.V.E.’s profits and fully rejected N.V.E.’s $60 million false advertising claim. Case No: 4:08-cv-11867

In re Certain Wiper Blades (D. Nevada; E.D. Michigan; ITC): Trial counsel for Corea Autoparts (CAP) in multiple patent infringement actions concerning “bracket-less” or “beam” style wiper blades. Obtained settlement prior to trial. lnv. No. 337-TA-816

Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. (W.D. Washington; Federal Circuit): Counsel for plaintiff Ancora Technologies in a patent infringement action concerning computer software. Obtained reversal by the Federal Circuit of a decision by the district court invalidating the asserted patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Case No. 2:16-cv-01919; 18-cv-1404

Lumalier Corp., v. Infection Prevention Technologies LLC (Federal Circuit.): Counsel for Infection Prevention Technologies in declaratory judgment action concerning multiple patents for ultraviolet sterilization devices used in hospitals. Obtained summary judgment ruling of non-infringement. Obtained affirmance in an appeal to Federal Circuit. Case No. 2:14-cv-0138

Ancora Techs. v. Apple, Inc. (Federal Circuit): Counsel for Ancora Technologies patent infringement action concerning computer software. Obtained a positive claim construction ruling for the patent holder on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Case No: 744 F.3d 732

Robert Bosch LLC v. Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation et al. (Settlement – E.D. Michigan & ITC) – In re Certain Wiper Blades, lnv: Lead trial counsel for Corea Autoparts (CAP) in multiple patent infringement actions concerning “bracket-less” or “beam” style wiper blades. Favorable settlement was reached prior to trial. Case No: 2:11-cv-14019; lnv. No. 337-TA-816

Living Essentials v. N2G (Jury Trial – E.D. Michigan) – Represented Plaintiff Living Essentials in a trademark infringement action involving plaintiff`s 5-Hour ENERGY trademark. The Court granted Plaintiff summary judgment on secondary meaning and copyright infringement. At trial, the jury found for the Plaintiff on trademark and trade dress infringement and awarded Plaintiff $1,750,000 in damages and attorney fees. Case No. 2:08-cv-10983

Infection Prevention Technologies LLC v. Lumalier (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent infringement action involving room disinfection patents where reflected ultraviolet radiation is the method by which the room is disinfected. The Court granted plaintiff`s summary judgment motion and found that plaintiff did not infringe Lumalier’s patents. Case No. 2:10-cv-12371

Digitech Information Systems, Inc. v. Ally Financial, et al. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Counsel for defendant in this patent infringement action. The patent-in-suit was held invalid as not meeting the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Decision was upheld in an appeal to the Federal Circuit. Case No. 2:11-cv-13999

P&M Services, Inc. v. Martin Gubb (Jury Trial – E.D. Michigan): Lead trial counsel for defendant in patent infringement action concerning paper converting technology. Plaintiff was seeking $7.2 million in damages for infringement of multiple patents. After a three week trial, a favorable jury verdict of $14,167 was obtained for our client. Obtained affirmance of the judgment on appeal at the Federal Circuit. Case No. 04-cv-72432

Magnadyne Corp. v. Best Buy, et. al. (Settlement – C.D. California): Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Magnadyne in a patent infringement action involving the design of cellular phone chargers. Obtained a positive claim construction ruling for the patent holder as well as positive summary judgment result. This success led to the settlement of the matter just prior to trial. Case No. 09-cv-1763; 09-cv-1937

Elmotec Statomat, Inc. v. Visteon Corp. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Counsel for defendant in a matter involving breach of contract, correction of inventorship of several patents, and related claims concerning alternator technologies. Obtained a favorable summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims. Case No. 07-cv-13884

In the matter of Certain Automotive Parts (ITC): Trial counsel for Ford Motor Company in a design patent lawsuit directed to vehicle replacement parts. Obtained infringement finding and upheld validity of seven design patents and obtained a General Exclusion Order preventing any infringing parts from entering the United States. Investigation No. 337-TA-557

SPX Corp. v. Bartec USA, LLC, et. al. (Settlement – E.D. Michigan): Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in a patent infringement action. Obtained a positive claim construction ruling for the patent holder as well as an Order excluding evidence of certain prior art from the defendants. These successes led to the settlement of the matter. Case No. 06-cv-14888

Excellent Inventions, Inc. v. FKA Distributing, et al. (Settlement – S.D. Texas): Counsel for defendant in a patent infringement action with multiple patents concerning control schemes for personal wellness products. Successfully defended plaintiff`s claim for a preliminary injunction. Successfully argued at the Markman hearing for a claim scope that rendered the patents invalid. Our success at the Markman hearing led to a favorable settlement for our client. Case No. H-04-4543

Ultra-Precision Manufacturing v. Ford Motor Company (Jury Trial – E.D. Michigan): Trial counsel for defendant involving claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, commercial misappropriation and inventor fraud related to compressor technologies. Plaintiff was seeking tens of millions in damages. Through trial and multiple appeals, obtained and upheld a finding of no liability for our client. Case No. 01-cv-70302

General Motors Corporation, et al. v. Lanard Toys, Inc., et al. (Jury Trial – E.D. Michigan) – Represented Plaintiff in an action against a toy manufacturer for unfair competition, trademark infringement, and trade dress infringement. Obtained over $1 million-dollar judgment, which included disgorgement of Defendant’s profits and royalties to General Motors, as well as $1 million in attorney’s fees. Affirmed in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Case No. 01-cv-71103; 03-cv-72731

Elite Logistics Services, Inc., et al. v. ATX Technologies, Inc., et al. (Summary Judgment – S.D. Texas): Counsel for defendant Ford in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning vehicle telematics. Successfully defended plaintiff`s claim for a preliminary injunction and claim for tens of millions in damages. Obtained summary judgment ruling of non-infringement for our client. Case No. 02-866

Scott Clare, et al. v. Ford Motors Company, et al. (Settlement – E.D. Texas): Counsel for defendant Ford Motor Company concerning pick-up truck designs. Obtained favorable settlement for our client prior to trial. Case No. 02-325

Hilgraeve Corporation v. Symantec Corporation (Settlement – E.D. Michigan): Counsel for plaintiff in a patent infringement action involving anti-virus software. Secured a $62.5 million settlement for our client on the eve of trial. Case No. 97-40370

Richard J. Ditzik v. Viewsonic Corporation, et al. (E.D. Michigan): Counsel for individual/sole proprietorship patentee in lawsuit against large computer monitor manufacturers for infringement of multiple patents. Case No. 03-74043

In the matter of Certain Automotive Parts (ITC): Trial counsel for Ford Motor Company in a design patent lawsuit directed to vehicle replacement parts. Obtained infringement finding and upheld validity of seven design patents and obtained a General Exclusion Order preventing any infringing parts from entering the United States. Investigation Nos. 337-TA-557, 337-TA-651