Practice Areas

• Chemical Patent Practice
• Cleantech/Biofuels Patent Practice
• Electronics and IT Patent Practice
• Life Sciences Patent Practice
• Mechanical Patent Practice
• Trademark and Copyright Practice
• Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice
• Post-Grant Review Practice

Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice

Challenges may arise before or after a patent is granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). BSKB has substantial experience counseling and representing its clients in interference proceedings before the USPTO and in opposition proceedings in foreign countries. BSKB attorneys are well versed in the rules and procedures governing interference practice. The firm is regularly involved in multiple interference proceedings in a variety of technical areas. Our expertise in interference practice enables us to effectively advocate on our clients' behalf to establish their right to priority of invention or to negotiate advantageous settlements.

Our intellectual property litigators represent clients in civil litigation, appeals and all proceedings in all federal district and appellate courts, state courts, and in intellectual property enforcement proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission. In addition to their considerable litigation and trial experience, our attorneys have both the technical expertise necessary to understand the subject matter of the dispute and many years of experience in the substantive areas of patent, trademark and copyright law underlying each dispute.

Throughout its history, BSKB has successfully prosecuted and defended numerous patent, trademark and copyright infringement actions, related causes of action and domain name disputes. We pride ourselves on resolving these disputes in a manner most favorable to our clients.

Pending Cases

Rydex. Ltd. v. Ford Motor Company, et al, Case No.. 4:11-cv-00122, Southern District of Texas (1472-360L)

Effectively Illuminated Pathways LLC v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc. et al, Action No. 6:11-cv-00032 LED, Eastern District of Texas (1472-359L)

Traffic Information, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al, Civil Action No. 2-10-CV-145, Eastern District of Texas (1472-355L)

Tropp v. Conair Corporation et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-04446-ENV-RLM

Oticon, Inc. v. Sebotek Hearing Systems, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-05489-FLW

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

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

Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC v. Oticon, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Civil Action No. 07cv212CVE-SAJ

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