We Litigate IP Matters

No Pressure

We are not the type of firm that will pressure you to litigate. Unlike many firms with massive overhead, we do not require a constant stream of lawsuits to be successful. We see litigation as your last resort, after other reasonable options have been exhausted. But, when there is no other reasonable choice, we can get the job done.


Supreme Court

Success at Every Level, Including the United States Supreme Court

In front of the United States Supreme Court, Reising successfully identified an overlap between trade dress law and patent law. The matter has since become a landmark case, and is widely cited in treatises and student case books.

We Initiate and Challenge Proceedings in the USPTO and the International Trade Commission


USPTO

We provide counsel for proceedings before the USPTO, including requests for patent reexaminations, patent reissues, trademark oppositions, and trademark cancellations. We also handle patent disputes amid prosecution and after issuance via the new tools under the America Invents Act—third party citation of prior art, derivation proceedings, inter-partes review, and post grant review.

We Defend and Assert Litigation in State and Federal Courts


Federal District Court (Eastern District, MI)

Our firm has successfully handled litigation matters from the lowest state courts and federal district courts, up to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit(CAFC), and all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. We maintain a well-equipped litigation department with experienced and resourceful litigators. Our counsel has been successful for both defendants and plaintiffs in patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, and unfair competition lawsuits.

In case after case, our attorneys have met and exceeded client expectations. Our experienced litigators are supported by a heavy and thoughtful investment in technology. We use state-of-the-art technology for legal and fact research, communication management, and document presentation.


CAFC

This combination of talent and technology allows us to deliver maximum effectiveness and lower costs, not only for routine office matters, but also for full-scale federal litigation. This combination has proven to be successful when litigating head-to-head against much larger firms. We know from experience that the biggest law firm doesn’t always provide the most effective representation.

Representative Work

  • TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.
    • An “Intellectual Property Today” survey of more than 20,000 in-house and outside IP counsel ranked the case of “TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.” No. 99-1571, United States Supreme Court, as the second most important trademark litigation matter to have been handled by a U.S. based firm during 1998 – 2002.
    • This case involved a matter of trade dress. In front of the United States Supreme Court, Reising successfully identified an overlap between trade dress law and patent law, and persuaded the Court to eliminate the overlap and thereby clearly define the coverage available from patent law and trademark law, respectively.
    • The Court delivered a unanimous opinion in favor of Reising’s client, TrafFix Devices, Inc.
    • TrafFix has become a landmark case, widely cited in treatises and student case books. In the process of handling the case from the district court all the way through the Supreme Court proceeding, Reising gained valuable and rare experience that it continues to draw upon in serving its clients.
  • ArcelorMittal et al. v. Severstal Dearborn & Wheeling-Nisshin et al.
    • This case related to an allegation of patent infringement relating to a strong, lightweight steel that is resistant to corrosion. Reising represented both Severstal Dearborn, a steel manufacturer, and Wheeling-Nisshin, a coater of the steel.
    • Reising participated in a unique negotiation with the trial court that resulted in reducing the case pendency by a third that of a normal trial allowing the trial to proceed before a jury in under a year. This was important to Severstal Dearborn and Wheeling-Nisshin because automotive OEMs were producing specifications for these types of steels and these two parties did not want their product excluded because an improper charge of patent infringement inhibited their ability to sell their product.
    • Reising lawyers successfully convinced the trial court of the proper scope of the asserted claims. At trial, Reising lawyers successfully convinced the jury that a) the claims of the asserted patent were not infringed and b) that the claims of the asserted patent were invalid. These findings allow Severstal Dearborn and Wheeling-Nisshin to participate in a properly open marketplace with a competitive quality product that meets the OEMs specifications.
  • Chemcast Corp. v. Arco Industries Corp.
    • In a precedent-setting case that is widely cited in courts today, Reising helped the court create a novel and concise formulation of the best mode analysis as a two-part test. This two-part test continues to be cited today in U.S. courts.
    • The two-part best mode analysis that was formulated during this case:
      1. Did the inventor have a best mode?
      2. If the inventor had a best mode, did he disclose it in the patent application?
    • What makes this case stand out is the way Reising helped shape the law in a meaningful way, and how the firm ferreted out the facts that were decisive in evaluating the two-part test of the best mode analysis. Reising successfully defended Arco Industries.
  • Transmatic Inc., v. Gulton Industries, Inc.
    • In this case, Reising went head-to-head with a New York City firm that calls itself, “One of the oldest and biggest IP Law Firms in the world.”
    • Representing Transmatic Inc., Reising successfully proved patent infringement and obtained a multi-million dollar verdict, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
    • What makes this case stand out is the way Reising litigated against one of the biggest IP law firms in the world. This case shows that there is solid IP Law representation available in the Detroit market, and at rates that are lower than larger legal markets.
  • Perceptron & Ford Motor Co. v. Fori Automation
    • This was a case of patent infringement involving a sophisticated laser wheel alignment machine that operated as part of an automobile assembly line.
    • Reising represented Fori Automation, a family run business operating in the highly competitive automotive industry. Before this case made it to court for a trial, Reising’s aggressive investigation uncovered critical facts that motivated the plaintiffs – two very large corporations – to drop their claims.
    • Fori Automation continues to supply the automotive industry with sophisticated machines.
  • Ortho-Kinetics, Inc. v. Invacare, Inc.
    • Representing Ortho-Kinetics in this patent infringement case, Reising suffered an initial setback when the trial court judge severely limited the scope of the claims covering the Ortho-Kinetics patent – to the point that the defendant’s product did not seem to infringe. Yet, Reising succeeded in correcting the claim scope on appeal, and ultimately won a multi-million dollar judgment for their client. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
    • This case shows that there is solid IP law representation available in the Detroit market, and at rates that are lower than larger legal markets.
  • McKeon Products Inc. v. Flents Products Co.
    • Packaging differences defended. This case involved trade dress and trademark infringement claims brought against a Reising client. The plaintiff complained that our client was unfairly trading on the plaintiff’s good will in its national brand, and specifically that our client adopted packaging that was too similar to the plaintiff’s packaging.
    • We successfully defended our client against the plaintiff’s effort to get a preliminary injunction, which would have forced our client to immediately stop selling the accused packages. 69 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1032 (E.D. Mich. 2003). We then counseled our client to make a minor packaging change, which assisted in settling the case.
  • Laminate Products, Inc. et al. v. Guardian Automotive, Inc., et al.
    • The firm successfully defended two corporations and an individual in this highly complex business tort case that lasted nearly three years. The case involved dozens of trade secret claims and unfair competition, as well as tortious interference and breach of contract claims. It finally ended in a favorable settlement after a favorable jury trial.
  • Magline, Inc. v. RealWheels Cover Company, Inc.
    • We represented the opposer in this successful trademark opposition. The client has a long-standing mark that it wanted to protect. We opposed registration of a confusingly similar mark and convinced the applicant to withdraw its application and select another mark.
  • Mallory v. Floyd Bell
    • A client of a Reising attorney was sued for patent infringement. Multiple products were accused of infringing multiple patents. The plaintiff was represented by a well-known Chicago IP firm. In a unique manner of resolving the case, the now Reising attorney gathered all pertinent information relating to validity and non-infringement and had a face-to-face meeting with opposing counsel. Shortly after presenting the information, the case was dismissed – without the need for court intervention. This approach saved the client significant expense and resulted in a favorable outcome.
  • Winfield v. Gemmy
    • A Reising attorney successfully defended his client, Gemmy, from a claim for copyright infringement. The client was one of several defendants sued under a copyright for a Halloween decoration having a crashing witch design. All of the other defendants settled their cases in exchange for license payments. However, Gemmy did not settle. Gemmy ultimately won a finding of non-infringement at the trial court level, and the finding was affirmed on appeal.
  • Magline v. Wesco
    • Our client sued to protect its federally registered trademarks. Our client also sued to protect the trade dress in the design of certain components of its hand trucks. After discovery, the attorneys held a settlement conference with the judge and reached a settlement and Consent Judgment that were favorable to our client. Subsequently, Reising attorneys successfully enforced the Consent Judgment. The defendant was represented by a well-established Philadelphia law firm and a large, well-known general practice firm from Detroit.
  • Young v. Lumenis
    • A Reising attorney successfully appealed a district court’s decision adverse to his client. Dr. Young holds a patent relating to a feline declaw procedure. Certain of the patent claims were found indefinite, and therefore invalid, by the district court. The district court also found certain claims unenforceable for inequitable conduct. On appeal, The Federal Circuit found the claims not to be indefinite and also found the claims were not procured by inequitable conduct. See Young v. Lumenis, 492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007) As a result of the reversal and subsequent remand of the case to the District Court, Dr. Young and Lumenis ultimately settled the action.
  • Pheasant Run, Inc. v. Charter Township of Canton
    • This was a trademark infringement case brought against a Reising client. The plaintiff complained that our client was unfairly trading on the plaintiff’s good will in its name for a golf course. The plaintiff had a facility in Illinois that included a golf course. Our client operated a golf course in Michigan.
    • Reising lawyers successfully defended our client against the plaintiff’s effort to get a preliminary injunction, which would have forced our client to immediately stop using the Pheasant Run name for its golf course. We then counseled our client to make a nominal one-time license payment to the plaintiff, which settled the case. The plaintiff permitted our client to continue using the name.

For over one hundred years, our attorneys have aggressively represented clients in cases that involved key components of our clients’ intellectual property portfolios. We can handle your litigation needs too.