Experience: Mr. Cunningham has over 20 years of experience in patent, trademark, and copyright infringement litigation, spanning numerous district courts and appellate courts throughout the country. He is well respected by courts and opposing counsel alike for coming up with creative solutions for resolving disputes in his clients’ favor.
Mr. Cunningham is experienced in all aspects of procurement, analysis, protection, and enforcement of his clients’ intellectual property rights in patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets law. He has served clients in countless industries, such as technology, medical devices, alternative energy, consumer electronics and entertainment devices, musical instruments, games, and gaming. He has represented internet content providers, content authors, software engineers, trademark owners, trade dress owners, inventors, designers, and many others.
Mr. Cunningham has created several valuable patents, including exercise equipment, medical and surgical devices and methods, a dual surface circuit board configuration, an anti-viral composition, casino games, an automatic light switch mechanism for firearms, fuel cell electrolytes, a method to efficiently turn ocean wave energy into electricity, a multi-wavelength-pumped laser, a fin attachment mechanism for watercraft, a guitar body, a guitar pickup device, a novel phone holder, a six-wheeled skateboard, a user-friendly container cap, and a piezoelectric printer head.
Worked with members of the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Law, as a scientist and an intellectual property lawyer, Mr. Cunningham helped draft portions of the America Invents Act.
He also creates company-wide intellectual property strategies that maximize client profitability and minimize the chance of encountering the need to engage in litigation or disputes.
Education: Mr. Cunningham holds a B.S. in Materials Science and Engineering from UCLA and a J.D. from the UCLA School of Law.
Aero Advanced Paint Technologies, Inc. v. International Aero Products, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00394 (S.D. Ohio 2018). Aero Advanced filed suit in the Southern District of Ohio against International Aero, alleging infringement of Aero Advanced’s AERO and Design trademark. We filed a motion to dismiss or transfer on the grounds that we had filed first in the Central District of California and for the Ohio District Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over our client. The Ohio District Court granted our motion, holding that, contrary to Aero Advanced’s arguments in its opposition, our decision to file a surprise complaint in the California District Court while at the same time attempting to negotiate a resolution with Aero Advanced, without more, is not evidence of bad faith conduct when deciding whether to apply the first-to-file rule.
Tile Tech, Inc. v. Appian Way Sales, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01660 JLR (W.D. Wa. 2018). Filed suit in the Western District of Washington alleging patent infringement and defending client against counterclaims of patent infringement and unfair competition. The parties successfully reached a settlement of all claims and counterclaims in the action, and the entire action was dismissed with prejudice.
International Aero Products, LLC v. Aero Advanced Paint Technologies, Inc., 325 F. Supp.3d 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2018). Filed suit in the Central District of California against Aero Advanced, a company based in Ohio, for infringing International Aero’s AERO and Design trademark. Aero Advanced filed a motion to dismiss or transfer for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court found we had made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over Aero Advanced by alleging that it (1) willfully infringed on International Aero’s trademark in this judicial district and showing (2) that its website includes several news articles and promotional advertisements targeted at this district and (3) that it was aware that International Aero’s principal place of business is in this district.
Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Lawrence Mallard Corp., Trademark Opposition No. 91223575 (Judgment entered August 30, 2018 sustaining Pinkette’s opposition). Lawrence Mallard filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for registration of its LASH and Design trademark. We initiated a trademark opposition proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board opposing the registration, arguing that Lawrence Mallard’s applied-for trademark creates a likelihood of confusion with client’s LUSH trademark. After trial in which we submitted evidence of the strength of our client’s LUSH trademark, similarity of the trademarks, similarity of the goods, and similarity of the channels of trade, The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed and entered judgment in our client’s favor.
Diopsys, Inc. v. Konan Medical USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05882-WHW (D.NJ 2018). In an action in which plaintiff alleged infringement of three patents, two software copyrights, and one trademark, as well as alleging unfair competition, product disparagement, and reformation of contract against my clients, the parties reached a settlement of all claims in the action. The entire action was dismissed with prejudice.
Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosmetic Warriors Ltd., 894 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2018). Cosmetic Warriors (CW), which had used LUSH for cosmetics for nearly 20 years, challenged Pinkette’s use of LUSH as a trademark for clothing. We developed Pinkette’s defenses that CW’s rights in LUSH as a trademark do not extend to clothing and that CW’s delay in challenging Pinkette’s use of LUSH as a trademark for clothing (more than 12 years after Pinkette had begun using the mark and nearly five years after Pinkette had federally registered its LUSH trademark for clothing) was unreasonable delay, barring CW from asserting its trademark rights against Pinkette. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment that CW’s delay was unreasonable and as a result CW’s LUSH trademark does not extend to clothing and CW is barred from enjoining Pinkette’s use of LUSH for clothing.
Colt International Clothing, Inc. dba Colt LED v. Quasar Science, LLC et al. II, 304 F.Supp. 3d 891 (C.D. Cal. 2018). Filed suit for patent infringement against a competitor, its distributor, and a number of studios for infringing our client’s patent concerning the switchable bi-color LED tubes widely used in the movie industry. One of the studios filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the patent was invalid. The Court denied the studio’s motion, agreeing with our client that the complaint and the patent are not subject to a dismissal on invalidity grounds.
Colt International Clothing, Inc. dba Colt LED v. Quasar Science, LLC et al. I, 2:16-CV-03040 AB (C.D. Cal. 2017). Client’s competitor filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that our client’s patent was invalid based on defendant’s proffered evidence, namely, an invoice, an undated photograph, and a declaration of the photographer alleging that the undated photograph was taken at the time of the invoice, long before the patent’s priority date. The Court denied Quasar’s motion, agreeing with our client’s legal showing that the photograph, invoice, and declaration were not sufficient to invalidate the patent as a matter of law.
Colt International Clothing, Inc. dba Colt LED v. Quasar Science, LLC et al. I, 2:16-CV-03040 AB (C.D. Cal. 2017). File suit for patent infringement against a competitor and its distributor for infringing our client’s patent concerning a lighting harness used in movie studios. After months of demanding proper document production, we moved the Court to compel proper document production and supplemental discovery responses from the defendants. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion to compel. After two follow up status reports, the Magistrate Judge entered another order, requiring a principal from each defendant to swear under oath that all document production has been completed.
Diopsys, Inc. v. Konan Medical USA, Inc., Case No.: 2:15-CV-05882-WHW (D.NJ 2017). Represented all defendants in patent infringement action. In support of Konan Medical USA’s proposed claim constructions, we submitted a declaration of the inventor, who no longer worked at Diopsys. Diopsys moved to strike the inventor’s declaration, we opposed Diopsys’ motion to strike, and the Court agreed with our position, denying Diopsys’ motion.
Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosmetic Warriors Ltd., Case No. 15-CV-4950 SJO (C.D. Cal. 2017). Cosmetic Warriors (CW), which had used LUSH for cosmetics for nearly 20 years, challenged Pinkette’s use of LUSH as a trademark for clothing. We developed Pinkette’s defenses that CW’s rights in LUSH as a trademark do not extend to clothing and that CW’s delay in challenging Pinkette’s use of LUSH as a trademark for clothing (more than 12 years after Pinkette had begun using the mark and more than four years after Pinkette had federally registered its LUSH trademark for clothing) was unreasonable delay, barring CW from asserting its trademark rights against Pinkette. The jury returned a verdict that CW’s delay was unreasonable, and the Court entered judgment in Pinkette’s favor, barring CW from asserting its trademark rights against Pinkette.
United Const. Products, Inc. v. Tile Tech, Inc., 843 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Tile Tech (my client) received a default judgment under other counsel, and retained C&T to appeal the judgement. On appeal, we obtained a decision that greatly narrowed the judgment, reducing the district court’s injunction of “any substantially similar” product to an injunction of only any product that “actually infringes;” removing the district court’s requirement that Tile Tech hand over its molds; and replacing the district court’s prohibition on “using images of United’s products and drawings” to simply prohibiting any misrepresentation or false identification of United products as its own.
Cloud B, Inc. v. Glopo, Inc., 14-cv-00896-BRO (C.D. Cal. 2015). Litigated a design patent infringement action for our client, Cloud B, the patent owner, to a consent judgment and settlement agreement favorable to our client.
Hans Kusters Music NV v. Creative on Demand, Inc., et al., 14-CV-8714-FFM (C.D. Cal. 2015). Represented defendants in a copyright infringement suit involving a popular soccer chant in a Volkswagen commercial, reaching settlement that was very favorable for client.
VirnetX v. Apple, 767 F.3d 1308, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury’s verdict that that Apple’s FaceTime infringes several of plaintiff VirnetX’s patents, which cover VPN secure communications protocols over the internet of patent infringement. Representing co-plaintiff and leading defense and national security company, Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), we prepared a number of opinions of counsel that Apple’s FaceTime indeed infringes these patents as SAIC had retained an part interest in the patents after having sold them to VirnetX. Also assisted with deposition questions and jury instructions regarding this patent infringement by Apple. Four trials ensued. A recent jury verdict on April 10, 2018 brought the total damages award to $942 million, and a further agreement between the parties over attorneys’ fees raised the overall award to $1.035 billion, contingent upon VirnetX prevailing on appeal.
Imagenetix, Inc. v. Nikken, Inc., CV-11-3727 GHK (C.D. Cal. 2014). Litigated a utility patent infringement action for our client, Defendant Nikken, Inc., to a settlement agreement favorable to our client.
Doria International, Inc. v. CaseMate, Inc., Case No. 12-09544 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2013). Representing one of the world’s largest iPhone case manufacturers, we demonstrated how our client’s mobile phone cases do not infringe the design patents of one of the largest iPhone case manufacturers in the United States, leading to a very favorable settlement for my client.
Persis International, Inc. v. Burgett, Inc. and Samick Music Corporation , Case No. 09 C 7541 (E.D. Ill. 2013). Represented Samick Music, a leading musical instruments company, in defending against a trademark infringement suit, leading to a favorable settlement for our client.
Ventana v. Newell Window Furnishings, Case No. CV 12-4279 R (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2012). Demonstrated all of the ways that our client’s patent remains valid over the defendants’ prior art, leading to a favorable settlement for my client.
The Lopreiato Family Living Trust v. Echen, Inc., SACV 11-1327 AG (C.D. Cal. 2012). Litigated a utility patent infringement action for our client, Defendant Echen, Inc., to a settlement agreement favorable to our client.
In re Kiani, U.S. Patent No. 7,700,137 (PTAB 2010). Drafted and prosecuted patent applications for anti-viral compositions and methods. The Patent Examiner rejected our claims based on prior art. We then appealed one of the rejections to the Board of Patent Appeals, where we prevailed on a pre-appeal brief request for review, resulting in a quick reversal and a patent, followed by three other U.S. patents and five patents in Europe covering the invention.
International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Wrote the winning brief, for Walgreens, persuading the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse its own precedents spanning over 25 years and establish a new test that all district courts now must apply to determine whether a design patent is valid or invalid.
AICO v. Anthony California, 439 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We wrote the winning brief that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals adopted establishing the test that all district courts throughout the country now must apply when interpreting the scope of design patents.
Illinois Tool v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006). We developed and argued a theory of antitrust violation for tying the sale of patented printer cartridges to the sale of unpatented ink, which the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals adopted in part and then reached the United Supreme Court.
BJI Energy Solutions, LLC v. Artemis Technologies, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32505 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Artemis Technologies (our client) was sued in the Central District of California for patent infringement. We got the suit dismissed on the grounds that the Court had no personal jurisdiction over Artemis Technologies even though its predecessor was involved in unsuccessful merger negotiations with BJI’s predecessor, which was a California corporation with headquarters in the Central District of California.
Wolf Designs v. McElvoy. 341 F.Supp. 2d 639 (N.D. Tex. 2004). We got the District Court in Texas to stay that case in favor of the parallel case we had filed in the Central District of California.
Nikken, Inc. v. Robinsons-May Co., 51 Fed. Appx. 874 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Affirming judgment that all 45 retail defendants had infringed client’s patent and that the product supplier had infringed willfully.
Guthy-Renker Corp. v. Bernstein, 30 Fed. Appx. 584 (9th 2002). The Ninth Circuit adopted our argument that the liquidation damages clause in dispute was an invalid penalty because the amount bore no reasonable relationship to the range of actual damages the parties could have anticipated arising from the alleged breach of contract.
OroAmerica v. Nudelman, Case No. CV 99-5780 GHK (C.D. Cal. 2001). Obtained preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendant from selling numerous necklace charms and pendants on the grounds our client was likely to prevail on its copyright infringement claim. Uncovered evidence deep in the record that disproved defendants’ claim that they had the earlier creation date.
Winner International v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Uncovered a detail deep in the file history of the asserted patent that supported our proposed narrow construction of patent claims, which would have cleared client from infringement decisions. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals specifically commented that the detail from the file history indeed created a “close call.”
Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V. v. R.B. Marco, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1298 (TTAB 1999). In order to extend our client’s CORONA EXTRA trademark registrations to clothing, we petitioned to cancel a federal trademark registration for CORONA for clothing owned by R.B. Marco. We demonstrated to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s satisfaction that R.B. Marco had fraudulently altered its sales records to hide the fact that it had abandoned the mark. As a result, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board canceled R.B. Marco’s federal registration.
United States Patent and Trademark Office
California Supreme Court
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Central District of California
Northern District of California
Southern District of California
District of Colorado
Contact: [email protected]