Victor H. Polk, Jr. focuses his practice on the trial of complex business and intellectual property disputes. He is experienced in dealing with all types of intellectual property disputes, including cases involving patents, copyrights, trademarks, licensing agreements and trade secrets. He has tried a number of cases in jury and bench trials and arbitrations.
Vic's patent cases have involved a wide range of technologies, including: cellular phones [Potter Voice v. Samsung (voice recognition database search technology), Flatworld v. Samsung (user interface "fling" functionality), Cellport v. Samsung (selector for network communications channels) and Mobile Telecom Tech v. Samsung (methods for processing data messages between a network operations center and a mobile device)]; computer user interfaces (CDD v. Samsung); liquid crystal display monitors (CEA v. ViewSonic and Guardian Industries v. ViewSonic); aerosol spray plume analyzers (Proveris Scientific v. Innova Systems); electronic patient diaries (PHT v. CRF); visco-elastic foam mattresses and pillows (Tempur-Pedic v. Simmons and Tempur-Pedic v. Sealy); and sporting goods (Warrior Lacrosse v. Brine).
Vic also handles many trademark, copyright and trade secret cases. His copyright cases regularly deal with software issues (e.g., Escher v. AnPost), but also involve a wide variety of other issues, including summarizing newspaper articles (e.g., Nihon Keizai Shimbun v. Comline Business Data, Inc.) and fabric designs (e.g., Eastern Accents v. Ashley Furniture). Vic's trademark cases have run the gamut from traditional likelihood of confusion issues (e.g.,Operation ABLE of Greater Boston v. National Able Network, Inc. and Equine Technologies, Inc. v. Equitechnology, Inc.) to issues of genericness (e.g., Boston Duck Tours v. Super Duck Tours) and geographic misdescriptiveness (e.g., Japan Telecom v. Japan Telecom America).
Vic has also tried and handled a series of disputes concerning the licensing of software and patents. These included ICAM v. Parametric Technology Corporation (software license), Fidelity Investments v. Actuate Corporation (software license), Acer Snowmec v. MOH (license of indoor snowmaking technology patents) and ENPAR Technologies Inc. v. Biosource Inc. (license of water purification patent).
Vic also continues to work with various private equity clients and their portfolio companies. He has tried cases including claimed breaches of fiduciary duties, enforcement of letters of intent, exclusivity agreements and post-closing purchase price adjustments.
Vic is an active member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Co-Chair of the Copyright Committee of the Boston Patent Law Association, and was the Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation Committee of the Boston Bar Association. He has frequently been quoted on his views of developments in the law as it pertains to the Internet, including in theWall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Associated Press and The Boston Globe.
Areas of Concentration
· Intellectual property litigation
· Complex business disputes
Professional & Community Involvement
· Member, American Bar Association
· Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
· Member, Boston Bar Association
· Member, Boston Patent Law Association
- Co-Chair, Copyright Committee
· Member, International Trademark Association
· Member, Massachusetts Bar Association
Awards & Recognition
· Listed, The Best Lawyers in America, Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2009-2014
· Listed, IAM Magazine, "The IAM Patent 1000," Litigation, 2012-2013
· Listed, Super Lawyers magazine, Massachusetts Super Lawyers, 2004-2012
· Recognized, "New England Super Lawyers," Boston magazine, 2005-2011
· Rated, AV Preeminent® 5.0 out of 5
· Tempur-Pedic v. Simmons Bedding Co. (W.D. Va.). Represented Tempur-Pedic in patent case brought against 17 bedding companies concerning the design and construction of certain "memory foam" mattresses.
· Tempur-Pedic v. Sealy Corp. (W.D. Va.). Represented Tempur-Pedic in litigations concerning Tempur-Pedic patents involving design of certain "memory foam" pillows.
· Potter Voice v. Samsung (D. Colo.). Represented Samsung in patent suit over voice search technology on Samsung cellular phones.
· Flatworld v. Samsung (D. Del.). Represented Samsung in patent litigation concerning technology for removing icons from cellular phone displays.
· PHT, Inc. v. CRF, Inc. (D. Del.). Represented CRF in patent litigation concerning electronic patient diaries used by the pharmaceutical industry in drug testing.
· CEA v. ViewSonic; Guardian Industries v. ViewSonic (D. Del). Represented ViewSonic in defense of a series of cases involving allegations of infringement of patents allowing for wide angle viewing of Liquid Crystal Display panels as used in both televisions and computer monitors.
· Acer Snowmec v. MOH, Inc. (Mass.). Represented owner of "Ski Dubai" indoor snowmaking technology patents. Obtained jury verdict, which resulted in termination of an exclusive license of the patents and allowed client to re-take control of the technology in North America.
· Warrier Lacrosse v. Brine, Inc. (E.D. Mich.). Represented Brine in cases alleging infringement of patents concerning configuration of lacrosse heads and designs of lacrosse gloves.
· Nihon Keizai Shimbun v. Comline Business Data (S.D.N.Y.). Obtained judgment after a bench trial on behalf of the plaintiff Nikkei Newspaper for copyright infringement. Award affirmed on appeal.
· Japan Telecom v. Japan Telecom America (C.D. Cal.). Defended of this trademark action even though plaintiff had 14 years of prior use. Summary judgment in client's favor upheld on appeal.
· Kerrigan v. sexpicnet.com (Mass.). Represented Olympic skater Nancy Kerrigan in obtaining removal of fake pornographic photographs from the Internet.
Some of the above listed representations were handled by Mr. Polk prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Publications & Presentations
Articles, Lectures & Publications
· Co-Author, "When Patented Technologies Get Put to Experimental Use: Practical Considerations for Nanotech R&D," Nanotechnology Law & Business, Fall 2011
· Author, "Internet Defamation Unmasked," WallStreetLawyer.com, 2001
· Author, "Internet and eCommerce Litigation: Now the Hard Part," MCLE Internet and E-Commerce Litigation: Resolving Disputes and Litigating Accidents on the Information Superhighway, 2000
· Author, "ISP Immunity Gives Little Recourse for the Defamed," National Law Journal, April 26, 1999
· Author, "Equitable Defenses to the Invocation for the Copyright Act's Statute of Frauds Provision," Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, Vol. 46, 1999
· Co-Author, "On-Line Business Torts: Defamation; Copyright; Privacy; Employee E-mail,"MCLE Electronic Commerce Update '98: Cutting Edge Issues for the Networked Economy, 1998
· Lecturer, "Damages: The Neglected Child," American Intellectual Property Law Association, Annual Meeting, 2003
· Lecturer, "Internet Litigation 2001," MCLE, 2001
· Lecturer, "Sex, Drugs & Rock-n-Roll: Problem Legal Issues on the Internet," American Bar Association Annual Meeting Program, 2000
· Lecturer, "Internet and eCommerce Litigation: Resolving Disputes and Litigating Accidents on the Information Superhighway," MCLE, 2000
· Lecturer, "Electronic and Internet Commerce at the Dawn of the 21st Century," MCLE, 1999
· Lecturer, "Electronic Commerce Update '98: Cutting Edge Issues for the Networked Economy," MCLE, 1998