Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe |
Akron, Ohio intellectual property lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on 17 U.S.C. 101 a copyright infringement theory. |
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Roosters Cocktails, Inc. |
Tulsa, Oklahoma intellectual property lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a copyright infringement theory under 17 U.S.C. 101. |
Reed Timmer v. Medialinks TV, LLC |
Washington, DC intellectual property lawyer represent the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a copyright violation theory under 17 U.S.C. 501. |
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe |
Baltimore, Maryland intellectual property lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a copy right infringement theory. |
Allan Tannenbaum v. CityRealty.com, LLC |
New York, New York intellectual property lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a copyrights infringement law. |
Christopher Sadowski v. Romanian-American Network, Inc. |
Chicago, Illinois intellectual property lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a copyright infringement theory. |
Gregory P. Mango v. The Blark Wall Street Times, Inc. |
Tulsa, Oklahoma copyright lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a copyright infringement theory. |
Gregory P. Mango v. Newsmax Media, Inc. |
West Palm Beach, Florida intellectual property lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a copyright infringement theory. |
Michael Stokes v. Gold Productions, Inc., d/b/a Girls Night Out The Show |
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma copyright infringement lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a copyright infringement theory under 17 U.S.C. 501. |
Evofem Biosciences, Inc. v. Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. |
Newark, New Jersey intellectual property litigation lawyer represented the Plaintiff, who sued the Defendants on patent infringement theories. |
DP Creations v. Frank Li, d/b/a "Dollbie" |
Salt Lake City, Utah intellectual property lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a copyright infringement theory. |
Jose Ruiz v. Paramount Global, Inc. |
New York City, New York intellectual property lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a copyright infringement theory. |
Ajay Suresh v. Koyfin, Inc. and Rob Boris Koyfman |
New York, New York intellectual property lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a copyright infringement theory. |
James Messerschmidt v. EE Bar, LLC |
New York City, New York intellectual property lawyers represented Plaintiff that sued Defendant on a copyright infringement theory. $0 (08-04-2023 - NY) |
Dawn Cutillo, et al. v. David Cutillo, et al. |
Allentown, Pennsylvania intellectual property lawyer represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendants on copyright infringement theories. |
Laurie Rubin v. Trendland, L.L.C. |
New York City, New York intellectual property lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a copyright infringement theory in violation of 17 U.S.C. 501, which provides: |
John Kraljevich v. Courser Athletics, Inc. |
Boston, Massachusetts intellectual property lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on copyright infringement theories. |
Veranique Payton and Felton Payton, Jr. v. National Continental Insurance Company |
New Orleans, Louisiana personal injury car wreck lawyer represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendant in an auto insurance liability theory. |
Nathan Hansen v. Windsong Ranch Community Association, Inc. et al. |
Sherman, Texas personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a negligence theory. |
Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry Internsational Corp. v. Nearmap, U.S., Inc.; Nearmap Austrial Pty, Ltd.; and Nearmap, Ltd. |
Salt Lake City, Utah intellectual property law lawyers represented Plaintiff and Defendant in patent infringement throries. |
B.E. Technology, LLC v. Twitter, Inc. and Google, LLC |
Wilmington, Delaware patent infringement lawyer represented Plaintiff, which sued Defendants claiming that they were violating "United States Patent Nos, 8,549,410 (“the '410 patent”), 8,549,411 (“the '411 patent”), and 8,769,440 (“the '440 patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”). D.1.1. All of the /Asserted Patents expired in 2018. D.I. 67 at 2. |
Christopher Sadowski v. Impcto Latin New,s Inc., d/b/a Impacto Latino |
New York City, New York intellectual property lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a copyright infringement theory. |
Noah Lebowitz v. Harmoney Nutraceuticals, LLC |
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma intellectual property lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a trademark infringement theory under 15 U.S.C. 1114, which provides: |
Kathryn Townsend Griffin, et al. v. Edward Christopher Sheeran a/k/a "Ed Sheeran," et al. |
New York, New York civil litigation lawyers represented plaintiffs who sued Defendants on copyright infringement theories under 17 U.S.C. 101. |
Kirk Johnson v. Chad Kroeger, et al. |
Austin, Texas intellectual property lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on a copyright infringement theory. |
Next Page |