Paul Stewart

Representative Cases

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  Successfully represented American Airlines against a charge that its SabreVision computer reservation system infringed three patents.  Obtained rulings on summary judgment that SabreVision did not infringe any of the three patents.  Also obtained rulings on summary judgment that two of the plaintiff’s patents were invalid.  Obtained affirmance of all rulings on appeal.  District Court decisions:  Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534 (S.D. Cal. 1995), Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 500 (S.D. Cal. 1994), Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1637 (S.D. Cal. 1993), Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1246 (S.D. Cal. 1993).

Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Industries, Inc., 145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998).  Represented the plaintiff, a manufacturer of a revolutionary saw for cutting concrete, at both the trial and appellate levels.  Obtained summary judgment of patent infringement and patent validity on behalf of plaintiff at the district court, and obtained affirmance of this ruling on appeal.

Rhodes v. Rhodes Music Corporation, 35 Fed. Appx. 686 (9^th Cir. 2002) (non-precedential).  Successfully represented businesses charged with infringing trademark rights and publicity rights at the appellate level and obtained a reversal of summary judgment of infringement and reversal of a judgment of more than $1,000,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees.

American Medical Association v. Practice Management Information Corporation, 121 F.3d 516 (9^th Cir. 1997).  Successfully represented defendant, a distributor of medical books, by obtaining a judgment that the copyright owner had engaged in copyright misuse, rendering the copyright unenforceable until the misuse could be purged.  This decision marked the first time the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognized the existence of the defense of copyright misuse.

Cabinet Vision, Inc. v. Cabnetware, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 2030 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (non-precedential).  Represented manufacturer and distributor of custom cabinetry software against a charge of patent infringement and obtained a judgment reversing the jury verdict and invalidating the patent.  These rulings were affirmed on appeal.

Kyjen, Inc. v. Vo-Toys, Inc., 223 F.Supp.2d 1065 (C.D. Cal. 2002).  Represented plaintiff, a manufacturer and distributor of stuffed animal toys, and obtained summary judgment of copyright infringement and validity, and trademark infringement and validity.

Montano v. Eagle III Diversified, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10840 & 10837 (C.D. Cal. 2002).  Successfully defended manufacturer of after-market automotive accessory parts against a charge that it had engaged in unfair competition through the alleged copying of an unpatented automotive accessory part.  Defeated an application for a temporary restraining order and a motion for preliminary injunction.  The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice following denial of the preliminary injunction. 

B&S Plastics, Inc. v. Hydro Air Industries, Inc., 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1660 (C.D. Cal. 1995).  Defended the manufacturer of nozzles for outdoor spas against a charge that its nozzles infringed the patent of a competitor.  Obtained summary judgment invalidating the patent. 

SuperShuttle International, Inc. v. Schafer-Schonewill & Associates, Inc., 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1762 (D. Colo. 1995), 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1766 (D. Colo. 1995).  Represented, SuperShuttle, a well-known provider of airport van services against a competitor that began using the trademark “SuperShuttle Express.”  Obtained a preliminary injunction against the use of the SuperShuttle Express trademark.  When the defendant switched to the trademark “Super Express Shuttle,” we obtained a judgment of contempt. 

M’Otto Enterprises, Inc. v. Redsand, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1993).  Represented a professional volleyball player and clothing manufacturer against competing clothing manufacturer.  Our client marketed his clothing under a trademark which was a stylized version of his own face, emphasizing his distinctive hairstyle.  The competitor marketed its clothing using a cartoon logo having a similar hairstyle.  Obtained a judgment after trial that the competitor had infringed our client’s trademark rights, and enjoining further use of the competitor’s logo.

Sulzer Dental, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare USA, Inc. (Arbitration 2004).  Represented a dental implant manufacturer accused of patent infringement in binding arbitration.  Obtained a final judgment of noninfringement and an award of attorneys’ fees of more than $2 million for the successful defense.  These rulings were confirmed in their entirety by the District Court.

Articles

Joseph Re and Paul Stewart, "Manufacturers May Want to Lease -- Not Sell -- Their Patented Medical Devices,"Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry (MD+DI) (June 2017).

Paul A. Stewart and Joan Y. Chan, “Saving or Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege During IP Due Diligence: Supporting or Criticizing Hewlett-Packard v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,” Association of Business Trial Lawyers Report, Vol. XI, No. 4, Winter 2009/2010.

Author, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog

• Jury's Award for Patent Infringement Increased to 3 Million for Infringing Window Blinds Components
• Patent Judgments and Awards - Michigan Court Reinstates its Full $254 Million Award to Stryker for Competitor's Infringing Wound Irrigation Devices
• Patent Judgments and Awards - Eli Lilly Ordered to Pay German Drug Company $20 Million for Infringing Sales of Cialis