About Us

Quentin R. ("Rick") Corrie

Partner

Address
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
Suite 100 East
8110 Gatehouse Road
Falls Church, VA 22042
USA

Telephone: +1-703-205-8000
Facsimile: +1-703-205-8050
E-mail

Download VCard


Bar Admissions
1974, Virginia; 1975, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia; 1976, District of Columbia; 1979, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit; 2000, U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia.

Education
Bucknell University (B.S.M.E., 1968); George Washington University (M.S.A., 1970); Washington & Lee University (J.D., 1974). Delta Theta Phi.

Memberships
Virginia State Bar, District of Columbia Bar, American Association for Justice, American Bar Association, Virginia Bar Association, Fairfax Bar Association, D.C. Bar Association.

Experience
Rick Corrie has litigated in the ITC and extensively in federal court in many areas including intellectual property. Recent cases include the mechanical, electrical and chemical fields. Mr. Corrie has given lectures on the subject of intellectual property in Japan, Taiwan, and at the firm's annual seminars.

Representative Intellectual Property Cases
  • In the Matter of Certain Components for Installation of Marine Autopilots With GPS or IMU; International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-738
  • Oticon, Inc. v. Sebotek Hearing Systems, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-05489-FLW (active).
  • Fifth Market, Inc. v. CME Group, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00520-GMS (active).
  • Vivatone Hearing Systems, LLC. v. GN Resound A/S et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-01227-AWT; successful transfer of case from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (active).
  • Kone Corporation v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00452-GMS; patent infringement suit which settled recently.
  • Bayer Bioscience GmbH, et al. v. Hon. Jon. W. Dudas, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. C.A. 1:09cv00113-JR; prevailed in District Court and case appealed by defendant to Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (active).
  • Otels, Inc. v Metin Altun, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 1:07cvv551.
  • Zuna Corp. v. Target Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Case No. 1:05cv369; defense of patent infringement case with favorable settlement.
  • Aqua Products, Inc. v. SmartPool, Inc. et al., Case No. 04 CV 5492, United States District Court Southern District of New York — defense of a patent infringement suit, including Lanham Act and trademark violations, cyberpiracy, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices, and won motion to dismiss.
  • Zymogenetics, Inc. v. BTG International, Ltd., Civil Action No.: 1:01CV02275, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — appeal of interference proceeding won by BSKB, defended case and case settled.
  • Studex Corporation vs. Blomdahl Medical Innovation AB, Case No. CV-02-01017, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — declaratory judgment suit for patent infringement, transferred case successfully to D.C., defended case and won on a motion to dismiss.
  • APEX Machine Company v. O.M.S.O. Oficina, Macchine Per Stampa Su Oggetti SPA, Civ. A. No. 02-61554, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida - action for patent infringement and trade secret violations, defended case and obtained a favorable settlement for client.
  • Palmetto West Trading Company, LLC v. National Products, Inc., United States District Court for the Western District of Washington — defended action for patent infringement, Lanham Act and other violations including internet trademark violations.
  • Anthony Brown v. Oregon Scientific, et al., Case No. 2:03-CV-880, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division — defended two defendants in patent infringement suit and reached a settlement favorable to clients.
  • Monsanto Company et al. v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften E.V., Case 1:03-cv-2439 (RMU) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia — defended appeal of interference proceeding successfully on motion to transfer case and then obtained settlement favorable to client.
  • Halson Designs, Inc. v. Dah Ken Ind. Co., Ltd., United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Civil Action Number CV-01-1870-HU — retained post trial in patent infringement action and favorable settlement of pending judgment.