Peter S. Veregge, Esq.


Education: Peter Veregge holds a B.S. in Geological Sciences from the University of California Santa Barbara.  He received his J.D. from Loyola Law School, where he earned a place on the Moot Court Board and won the Best Brief Award in the Roger J. Traynor statewide competition.

Experience: Peter has extensive hands-on experience in litigating all aspects of patent, trademark, trade dress, and trade secret cases, as well as general litigation, in both state and federal courts, as well as opposition proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. He is also experienced in analyzing and procuring patents in the mechanical, electrical, and computer programming arts.

Admissions: Peter is a patent attorney registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  He is also admitted to numerous federal courts, including:
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan

Associations: Intellectual Property Section of the California State Bar Association.

Litigation Successes:

International Metaphysical Ministry, Inc. et al. v. Wisdom of the Heart Church, Case No. 4:18-cv-04524-SBA U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (2019).
This was a very unusual case where defendant Wisdom of the Heart Church (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP) was accused of creating fake blogsites to harm the plaintiff, as well as trademark and copyright infringement. Mr. Veregge successfully defeated a motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, successfully moved to have the case transferred from a U.S. District Court in Arizona to California, successfully moved to have another defendant dismissed from the case with prejudice for failure to properly serve the defendant, and managed to settle the case on very favorable terms.

Miramar Brands Group, Inc. v. Fonoimoana, Case No. CV 16-4224 PSG (RAOx), U.S. District Court, Central District of California (2017).
Representing plaintiff Miramar Brands Group, Inc. (“Miramar”) in a trademark infringement and unfair competition suit, Cislo & Thomas LLP took over the case very late from another law firm as the case was getting ready for trial. In response to defendant’s summary judgment motion, Miramar argued that not only should the court deny the defendant’s motion, but it should grant summary judgment in favor of Miramar. In an unusual move, the Court accepted Miramar’s argument and ordered the defendant to show why he should not have summary judgment granted against him. The Court denied summary judgment for both parties as to the claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and false competition, and set the case for trial. After significant trial preparations, including jury instructions and motions in limine, we were finally able to settle the matter in a second mediation. Shortly thereafter, the defendant transferred his trademark registration to our client, Miramar.

Lucidus Tech Co. v. EKO Dev., No. 16-CV-01531 JAK (JEMx), U.S. District Court, Central District of California (C.D. Cal. 2017).
EKO Development (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP), was accused of infringing ten of the plaintiff’s patents regarding automatic-opening trash cans. Although Cislo & Thomas answered the complaint with myriad reasons why the patents were invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed, and developed extensive invalidity contentions, the parties settled the matter at mediation.

The Tire Hanger Corp. v. My Car Guy Concierge Services, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Case No.5:14-cv-00549-ODW (MANx) (2015).
Tire Hanger (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP) successfully lifted an interim stay order. The case had been stayed pending the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) as to whether to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) for the two asserted patents. When the PTAB denied one of the IPRs, we argued that the stay was not justified because fewer than all of the patents were under review. Relying on our arguments and case law, on June 16, 2015, the Court lifted the stay and allowed the case to proceed. The case eventually settled on terms favorable to the client.

Kim Seng Co. v. J&A Importers, Inc., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Case No. 10-CV-00742-CAS, 810 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
Cislo & Thomas successfully defended J&A Importers, Inc. against copyright and trade dress infringement claims involving rice noodle packaging. On summary judgment, we showed that the plaintiff did not have proper title to the copyright for the package photograph, which the plaintiff maintained was the basis for the infringement. In addition, we showed that the plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence of secondary meaning to prove its trade dress claims. We also defeated plaintiff’s post-judgment motion to alter or amend the judgment. The plaintiff also brought a motion to enforce a settlement, which we defeated because the settlement offer had expired prior to the plaintiff’s acceptance. In addition, we obtained an award of attorney fees exceeding $250,000 for our client, due in part to plaintiff’s failure to have a reasonable basis for its copyright claims.

Reshare v. Nikken, Case No. 10-CV-01936 JNE, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (2011).
Nikken (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP) successfully negotiated a settlement of this patent infringement suit involving a computer assisted selling system.

MH Systems Inc. v. Peter McNulty et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 2010.
NEI Treatment Systems, LLC (“NEI”) (represented by Cislo & Thomas) successfully defended against patent infringement claims regarding the export of a ballast water treatment system. The patent owner’s claims were all dismissed, and the Court issued a judgment whereby the patent owner took nothing.

International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F. 3d. 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Cislo & Thomas fully briefed this appeal on behalf of Walgreens and Touchsport. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals adopted our argument that the legal standard the Federal Circuit had used for over twenty-five years for determining the validity of a design patent must be overturned. As a result of this decision, design patents are measurably easier to invalidate. This new legal standard, as we argued, comports with U.S. Supreme Court precedent as well as more accurately mirrors the existing legal standard for determining whether an article infringes a design patent.

International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. and Touchsport Footwear USA Inc., 599 F.Supp.2d 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
Defendants Walgreens and Touchsport (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP) successfully moved for summary judgment on invalidity of three design patents having to do with shoes. The Court agreed with our position that the patentee’s designs were a “knock-off” of existing Crocs shoes. The Court held that the plaintiff’s patented shoes were designed to look so similar that they could be mistaken for the Crocs design, and invalidated the patents as anticipated by the Crocs prior art. The Court’s opinion is noteworthy as it was the first case to apply the Federal Circuit’s then most recent design patent infringement opinion, Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), to an invalidity analysis.

Nutratech v. Syntech, Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. Cal. 2008).
Syntech (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP) was accused of infringing the plaintiff’s patent covering the use of an herbal supplement for weight loss. The parties were competitors and the plaintiff’s president demanded to be able to review Syntech’s highly confidential customer and supplier lists, as well as financial information. The court, siding with Syntech, held that a protective order that restricted certain documents to “attorney’s eyes only” was appropriate. This opinion is routinely cited by parties seeking to include an “attorney’s eyes only” provision in their protective orders. The case eventually settled on favorable terms.

MH Systems v. McNulty, U.S.D.C., Central District of California, LEXIS 106916, (Dec. 31, 2008).
Defendant McNulty (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP) successfully defended against a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent infringement case. After filing the complaint, Plaintiff filed a patent reissue application and requested a stay of the court case during its examination. After two years of complete inactivity on the reissue application, the Court demanded an explanation, but the plaintiff failed to provide one. Thus, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff then made a motion to vacate the dismissal. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion due to Plaintiff’s unexplained delays in prosecuting the reissue application, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders. The final outcome was that the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s case against our client.

Sensitech, Inc. v. Time ‘N Temperature Co., Case No. CV-05-4674-R (C.D. Cal. 2006).
Time ‘N Temperature Co. (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP) defeated plaintiff’s motions for (a) contempt, (b) summary adjudication of damages, (c) determination and award of increased damages, and (d) summary adjudication of willful infringement. Case settled immediately after.