Lewis Roca: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
'''Christie, Parker & Hale (CPH)''' is a California based law firm providing a whole range of legal services. It continues to boost the business growth and development of its clients by protecting their Intellectual Property (IP)---the firms field of expertise which is considered the most important asset for any entity. | '''Christie, Parker & Hale (CPH)''' is a California based law firm providing a whole range of legal services. It continues to boost the business growth and development of its clients by protecting their Intellectual Property (IP)---the firms field of expertise which is considered the most important asset for any entity. | ||
==Services== | |||
CPH provides legal services to its clients in the following areas of expertise: <ref>[http://www.cph.com/sub/practice-areas.jsp Practice Areas]</ref> | |||
# Patents | |||
# Trademarks | |||
# Copyrights | |||
# Trade secrets | |||
# Internet Law | |||
# Litigation | |||
# Transactions | |||
# IP Strategy | |||
# International IP | |||
==History== | ==History== | ||
| Line 25: | Line 38: | ||
Since 1958, CPH established a strong working relationship and continuously providing legal representations for Avery Dennison Corporation, one of the leading companies in developing innovative identification and decorative solutions for businesses anywhere around the world. <ref>[http://www.averydennison.com/avy/en_us/ Avery Dennison]</ref> | Since 1958, CPH established a strong working relationship and continuously providing legal representations for Avery Dennison Corporation, one of the leading companies in developing innovative identification and decorative solutions for businesses anywhere around the world. <ref>[http://www.averydennison.com/avy/en_us/ Avery Dennison]</ref> | ||
==Successful Patent and Trademark Law Suits== | |||
CPH won numerous patent law suits, one of the significant events in the history of the law firm was the patent infringement case between Coleman Co., Inc, and Holly Mfg. Co. CPH won the case for Holly Mfg. Co obtaining one of the biggest patent case awards in 1959. <ref>[http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/269/269.F2d.660.16141.html Coleman Co. vs. Holly Mfg.]</ref> | |||
In 1969, CPH won another patent case for Lear, Inc. against Adkins when the Supreme Court decided to eliminate the doctrine of patent licensee estoppel. In 1972, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted the very first software patent to CPH and in 1984, CPH represented Union Oil against Verdegaal Bros. wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of validity and held a patent invalid. | In 1969, CPH won another patent case for Lear, Inc. against Adkins when the Supreme Court decided to eliminate the doctrine of patent licensee estoppel. In 1972, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted the very first software patent to CPH and in 1984, CPH represented Union Oil against Verdegaal Bros. wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of validity and held a patent invalid. | ||
| Line 33: | Line 48: | ||
In 2004, the law firm again succeeded another patent infringement lawsuit representing Caltech and Materina regarding the Nobel Prize winning technology developed by Robert Grubbs against Boulder Scientific. | In 2004, the law firm again succeeded another patent infringement lawsuit representing Caltech and Materina regarding the Nobel Prize winning technology developed by Robert Grubbs against Boulder Scientific. | ||
In 2009, CPH issued a press statement that the firm obtained a patent for Mojave Aerospace Venture’s, LLC. and Burt Rutan. The U.S. Patent No. 7,540,145 was assigned to engineered hybrid rocket system invented by Burt Rutan | In 2009, CPH issued a press statement that the firm obtained a patent for Mojave Aerospace Venture’s, LLC. and Burt Rutan. The U.S. Patent No. 7,540,145 was assigned to the engineered hybrid rocket system invented by Burt Rutan <ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29699 Hybrid Rocket System Patent]</ref> | ||
== | ==Cybersquatting Case== | ||
CPH represented Verizon and obtained the 33.15 million [[cybesquatting]] case filed against OnlineNIC , a San Francisco based domain name registration company which uses more of less than 663 domain names infringing the legitimate Verizon domain name confusing Verizon Customers. The infringing domain name addresses displayed advertisements that generates revenue for OnlineNIC. The Federal Court in Northern California ruled that OnlineNIC tried to take advantage of Verizon and its customers by registering domain names in bad-faith with an objective to attract internet users who want to access the legitimate website of Verizon.<ref>[http://www.cph.com/sub/cph-wins4.jsp? Press Release]</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 18:45, 29 March 2011
 | |
| Type: | Partnership |
| Industry: | Legal Practice |
| Founded: | 1954 |
| Headquarters: | 350 W. Colorado Blvd. Suite 500 Pasadena, CA |
| Country: | USA |
| Employees: | 51-200 |
| Website: | http://www.cph.com |
| Key People | |
Thomas J. Daly, Partner Management Committee
David A. Dillard, Partner Management Committee
Gregory S. Lampert, Managing Partner
| |
[edit]
Christie, Parker & Hale (CPH) is a California based law firm providing a whole range of legal services. It continues to boost the business growth and development of its clients by protecting their Intellectual Property (IP)---the firms field of expertise which is considered the most important asset for any entity.
Services[edit | edit source]
CPH provides legal services to its clients in the following areas of expertise: [1]
- Patents
- Trademarks
- Copyrights
- Trade secrets
- Internet Law
- Litigation
- Transactions
- IP Strategy
- International IP
History[edit | edit source]
The law firm has been in business for more than 50 years, founded by James Christie, Robert Parker and Russell Hale in 1954. [2]
Since 1958, CPH established a strong working relationship and continuously providing legal representations for Avery Dennison Corporation, one of the leading companies in developing innovative identification and decorative solutions for businesses anywhere around the world. [3]
Successful Patent and Trademark Law Suits[edit | edit source]
CPH won numerous patent law suits, one of the significant events in the history of the law firm was the patent infringement case between Coleman Co., Inc, and Holly Mfg. Co. CPH won the case for Holly Mfg. Co obtaining one of the biggest patent case awards in 1959. [4]
In 1969, CPH won another patent case for Lear, Inc. against Adkins when the Supreme Court decided to eliminate the doctrine of patent licensee estoppel. In 1972, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted the very first software patent to CPH and in 1984, CPH represented Union Oil against Verdegaal Bros. wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of validity and held a patent invalid.
CPH won the largest trademark decisions during the 90’s period when it obtained the $20 million trademark ruling in favor of its client, Super Health Institute in 1997 and subsequently in 1998, the law firm won another patent infringement case in favor of its client McGaw Inc. preserving the company’s $400-million-a-year product line. [5]
In 2004, the law firm again succeeded another patent infringement lawsuit representing Caltech and Materina regarding the Nobel Prize winning technology developed by Robert Grubbs against Boulder Scientific.
In 2009, CPH issued a press statement that the firm obtained a patent for Mojave Aerospace Venture’s, LLC. and Burt Rutan. The U.S. Patent No. 7,540,145 was assigned to the engineered hybrid rocket system invented by Burt Rutan [6]
Cybersquatting Case[edit | edit source]
CPH represented Verizon and obtained the 33.15 million cybesquatting case filed against OnlineNIC , a San Francisco based domain name registration company which uses more of less than 663 domain names infringing the legitimate Verizon domain name confusing Verizon Customers. The infringing domain name addresses displayed advertisements that generates revenue for OnlineNIC. The Federal Court in Northern California ruled that OnlineNIC tried to take advantage of Verizon and its customers by registering domain names in bad-faith with an objective to attract internet users who want to access the legitimate website of Verizon.[7]