Irwin IP concentrates on mission-critical, high-profile intellectual property and technology-related litigation. We represent clients who are defending against such claims being asserted against them, and we help select clients enforce and monetize their own intellectual property. Our clients range from individuals to Fortune 500 companies. We routinely successfully litigate against the largest, most prestigious law firms representing the largest companies in the world on matters valued in the tens and hundreds of millions. Some of the litigation matters we have handled, organized by matter type, can be reviewed by selecting the appropriate menu tab.
Some of Irwin IP’s patent litigation victories include: trial counsel in a multi-patent offensive matter for a mid-sized software company resulting in an eight-figure jury verdict after a three-week jury trial; lead counsel for a medical products company where we defeated a Fortune 50 company’s effort to enjoin sales of our client’s medical product for allegedly infringing patents that had survived numerous prior invalidity challenges by others and that protected a $1 billion/year market; lead counsel for a small, disruptive media streaming company against a large, multi-national company in two related multi-patent matters where we prevailed on summary judgment; and lead counsel for an industrial product supplier against its main competitor where we prevailed on summary judgment and obtained an award of attorney fees.
Examples of some of the high-profile trademark matters Irwin IP has handled include: Irwin IP was lead counsel for a small start-up in a case brought against it by a large, multi-national company that settled shortly after the trial court indicated its intention to grant Irwin IP’s summary judgment motion on the plaintiff’s false advertising and unfair competition claims; was lead counsel for a large Pizza Hut franchisee in litigation brought against it by Little Caesars that resulted in a co-existence agreement; and is lead counsel for the nation’s largest provider of legal funding services in a trademark infringement matter wherein the court granted Irwin IP’s motion for summary judgment that the trademark rights defendant asserted it owned were transferred to our client, and infringed by its former CEO, and granted both maximum statutory damages for cybersquatting and the full amount of attorneys’ fees given the exceptional nature of the case. Recently, we were lead counsel for a Fortune 500 company seeking a declaration that our client’s sales of aftermarket repair vehicle grilles allegedly embodying trademarks of a Global 500 original equipment manufacturer do not constitute trademark infringement under the doctrines of functionality and the right to repair, and that such claims are barred by laches, acquiescence, and estoppel, which resulted in an early preliminary victory with the magistrate judge recommending denying the OEM’s motion to dismiss on all grounds, and a favorable settlement.
Irwin IP’s copyright litigation practice has included numerous successful matters, including several where Irwin IP obtained recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees against the infringer. For example, Irwin IP has handled copyright matters for several recording artists for the unlawful distribution and sampling of their work; numerous photographers for the unlawful copying and distribution of their work; and sculptors for the unlawful copying and distribution of their work, including the unlawful removal of copyright management infringement. Perhaps the best evidence of Irwin IP’s expertise in copyright infringement matters is the fact that when a premier intellectual property law firm was sued for copyright infringement, it reached out to Irwin IP founder Barry Irwin to handle its defense.
Irwin IP also routinely litigates matters (both offensively and defensively) involving claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of confidentiality agreements, and violation of restrictive covenants; as well as claims for violation of the antitrust laws based upon the knowing, wrongful enforcement of intellectual property. Irwin IP litigated one such matter for a start-up against an established on-line retailer (that received extensive confidential disclosures and then proceeded to introduce its own competitive system) and achieved several critical pre-trial victories prior to the case being settled. Irwin IP also recently successfully resolved a case wherein it pursued antitrust claims against a Global 500 company based upon the vexatious enforcement of its intellectual property.