Intellectual Property Disputes and Litigation

The purpose of intellectual property law is to help protect inventors, creators, innovators, and investors intellectual and financial rights and privileges to creations and innovations the make.  Intellectual Property law is highly complex and you should only rely on an practitioner that has first-hand experience in these areas.  Know that the right counselor will help stimulate economic growth and encourages your innovation.

Taking the steps to have your creations recognized as intellectual property grants the owner very certain rights that all courts around the world bend deeply to recognize.  This means, that your song, gadget, idea, and trade secret is something that is highly respected by our systems of laws, but only to the extent that you want it respected.

The common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, geographical indications, and industrial designs.  But there are sub-sections and sections to registered intellectual property such as trade secrets and common law trademarks, or originating uses that are just as protected.  The Law Office of Joseph M. Kar, PC has worked with all forms of intellectual property since the start.

Increasingly, businesses require people to develop and maintain a working understanding of the capabilities and pitfalls of existing and emerging technologies or protecting “secrets” beyond a simple non-disclosure agreement.  Mr. Kar has successfully assisted individuals and public and private companies with their intellectual property, trade secrets, and emerging or commercially un-available technology.

Mr. Kar is highly skilled in business process development and improvement, with strong experience in international transactions and marketing, and has tried and litigated successfully intellectual property cases in State and Federal courts.  This firm works closely with, and sometimes contracts with, persons having intricate experience in development, design, architecture, programming, and, deployment of various products and programs.

In most instances, those venturing into or working with intellectual property, trade secrets or technology, domestically or internationally, will face troubling challenges when they intersect with State, Federal, and International regulations, or people or companies commercializing their protected technology or property.

It is important to remain vigilant about your exposure to different jurisdictions and management of the business process when it comes to intellectual property litigation.  These issues are only predecessors to other white-hot issues that should be carefully analyzed and reviewed by an attorney that knows how to protect your assets and business.

Since the start, Mr. Kar has taken a direct interest in working with emerging companies and entrepreneurs to stop the “bubble” before it bursts on them using his thoughtful, creative, and vigilant approaches.  When someone profits from your intellectual property, you need the Law Office of Joseph M. Kar, PC to make sure you follow all the right rules and to make the best claim against the infringer that you have available.

If you have a great idea, trade secret, patents, recipe, process, method, system, or any other type of invention or technology, the Law Office of Joseph M. Kar, PC will give you security that your intellectual property rights and business assets are protected.  Contact Mr. Kar for an experienced and creative intellectual property trial attorney to be on your side.

Megagoods Inc. v. Netdropshipper, Inc.,

L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 324 934.

Former Principals Accused of Uniform Trade Secrets Violations for Copying “Look and Feel” and Stealing Common “Keywords” in Online Marketplace. Disputing former partners operating an early online wholesale marketplace for electronic merchandise were sued for, among other things, violation of California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act after opening a competing business.  The firm was hired as lead trial counsel to defend Netdropshipper, and successfully had the court deny the Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as single-handedly upheld the denial in the second district court of appeal.  Plaintiff did not relent and continued to prosecute the case until one day before trial when the Plaintiff filed a surprise request for dismissal.  After dismissal was entered, Mr. Kar’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs was granted on the grounds that the Plaintiff filed a claim for violation of the uniform trade secrets act in “bad faith.”  Result: Defense prevailed and attorneys’ fees and costs recovered by court order and paid.

Guardian Life Insurance Company v. Union Central Life Insurance,

U.S.D.C. Case No. CV 07-05732 GPS (FMOx).

Defense of Uniform Trade Secrets Act Violation for Life Insurance Company. Guardian Life Insurance Company filed a complicated federal court action against its former life insurance broker and accused its new principal, Union Central Life Insurance, of unfair practices including violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  Mr. Kar was retained as sole litigation and trial counsel for Union Central Life Insurance Company.  After reviewing the volumes of discovery and evidence, Mr. Kar successfully moved for summary judgment after securing evidence in discovery establishing that Guardian Life Insurance Company did not have a legally viable claim against Union Central Life Insurance Company.  Result: Defense prevailed after court granted summary judgment.

Seebeyond v. Khosravi,

L.A.S.C. BC 303 114.

Defense of Uniform Trade Secrets Act Violation for Former Employee. A public company filed an action for an alleged violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act against its former employee and her company.  The Law Office of Joseph M. Kar, PC was hired after the litigation started and replaced attorneys who did not have experience with trade secrets matters.  Mr. Kar immediately secured evidence indisputably showing that the materials alleged to be protected had been widely available through third party vendors for a nominal fee and that the Plaintiff’s general counsel was acting in retaliation due to “sour feelings” over the manner in which the former employee was terminated.  Result:  Confidential Settlement.