Rebecca J. Cantor

Patent, Trademark, Trade Secret Litigation, & Trademark Office Proceedings

person photo

Rebecca serves as the Chair of Brooks Kushman's life science practice group. She concentrates her practice on intellectual property litigation, with a focus on patent litigation involving a wide range of technologies including pharmaceuticals and other life sciences technologies. Rebecca also has experience in trademark disputes, both in Federal Court and in the USPTO. In addition, Rebecca counsels clients in developing strategies to protect their intellectual property.

As a registered patent attorney, Rebecca is authorized to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Prior to joining Brooks Kushman, Rebecca was a patent litigator at Vinson & Elkins LLP in New York. While there, Rebecca participated in several patent litigations, including a Hatch-Waxman litigation where she was part of a trial team that received a favorable outcome for its client. Rebecca also worked on a number of due diligence projects, many of which involved technologies related to life sciences.

Representative Matters

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.

Mag Automotive LLC V. Gadra Enterprises, Inc. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Represented defendant Gadra in a trademark infringement matter relating to a numbering system on automotive equipment parts. Convinced the court that plaintiff did not have any enforceable trademark rights as the asserted trademarks were functional and had no secondary meaning, and the Court granted Summary Judgment  for Gadra. Also convinced the Court to deny Plaintiff Mag Automotive’ s  motion for Summary Judgment on Gadra’s counterclaims alleging false advertising, business and product disparagement, and tortious interference with business relationships and allow those claims to go to trial. The matter settled before trial. Case No. 2:16-cv-12049

See, Inc., v. See Concept SAS (Settlement – E.D. Michigan): Represented Plaintiff See, Inc. in a trademark, unfair competition, and breach of contract matter regarding eyewear products. Settled favorably just over one year after the complaint was filed. The Court also issued a permanent injunction against the Defendant. Case No. 2-16-cv-13261

Organizations and Affiliations

State Bar of Michigan

State Bar of New York

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

University of Michigan Law School, Adjunct Professor


“World Trademark Review 1000 Recommended Individual,” Intellectual Asset Management, 2021-2022

“Rising Star,” Michigan Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property, 2014-2019



    Co-Author, “Chapter 17: Intellectual Property,” Michigan Causes of Action Formbook, March 2020

    Co-Author, “Stanford v. Roche: Confirming the Basic Patent Law Principle that Inventors Ultimately Have Rights in Their Inventions,” les Nouvelles, March 2012

    Co-Author “The Generalist’s Guide to the America Invents Act,” State Bar of Texas Corporate Counsel Section Newsletter, Winter 2012

    Co-Author “A Brief Primer on the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011,” O’Connor’s Federal Intellectual Property Codes Plus, 2012-2013

    “A Safe Harbor for Investigational Drugs in Commission Proceedings: The Commission Declines to Extend the Kinik Rationale to Limit the Section 271(e) Defense in Process Patent Cases,” 23 337 Reporter 119, 2007


    Co-presenter, “Year In Review: 2019 Intellectual Property Litigation,” BK Webinar, February 2020


    J.D., University of Michigan, cum laude

    M.S., Pharmaceutical Engineering, University of Michigan

    B.S.E, Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, magna cum laude


    U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan

    U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan

    U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York 

    U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

    U.S. District Court, Western District of New York

    U.S. Court of Appeals – Federal Circuit

    U.S. Court of Appeals – 6th Circuit 

    Michigan Supreme Court

    New York Supreme Court