University of California at Santa Barbara, B.S., Geological Sciences, 1984
Law School Attended:
Loyola Law School, J.D., 1991
Year of First Admission:
registered to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; 1999, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; 2013, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California; 1992, U.S. District Court, Central and Northern District of California; 2007, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; 2001, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals; 1991, California
State Bar of California (Member, Intellectual Property Section)
United States Patent & Trademark Office (Registered Patent Attorney)
Ventura County Bar Association (Member, Intellectual Property Section).
Fullerton, California, September 16, 1958
Kim Seng v. J&A Importers, 810 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Successfully defended J&A Importers against a claim of copyright and trade dress infringement for noodle packaging. The court granted our summary judgment motion on all claims, because the plaintiff was unable to prove it possessed the IP rights it asserted. In addition, we obtained a substantial attorney fee award. The case subsequently settled while on appeal.Reshare v. Nikken, Case No. 10-CV-01936 JNE (D. Minn. 2011). Successfully negotiated a settlement of this patent infringement suit involving a computer-assisted selling system.Enagic v. Tseng, (C.D. Cal. 2010): Litigated a trademark infringement case for water ionizing machines on behalf of Enagic, based on defendant's use of client's mark in advertising. Case settled after discovery. Enagic USA v. Cabados (C.D. Cal. 2008): Litigated a trademark infringement case on behalf of Enagic. Case settled.MH Systems v. McNulty (C.D. Cal. 2010): Litigated a patent infringement case involving a ballast water treatment system. Court granted our client, McNulty, a judgment whereby the patent owner took nothing.International Seaway Trading v. Walgreen Co., 589 F. 3d. 1233 (Fed. Cir., 2009): The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals adopted our argument that the legal standard the Federal Circuit had used for over twenty-five years in determining whether a design patent is invalid must be overturned. As a result of this decision, design patents will in general be measurably easier for an alleged infringer to invalidate, and 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 a design patent is infringed by an accused design.International Seaway Trading v. Walgreen Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6240 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2009). In a design patent infringement case, we successfully moved for summary judgment on invalidity of three design patents on behalf of Walgreens and Touchsport having to do with shoes. The Court agreed with our position that the patentee's designs were a “knock off” of existing Crocs shoes, and designed to look similar to the original so that they could be mistaken for the Crocs design. The Court invalidated the patents as anticipated by the Crocs prior art, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court's opinion is noteworthy as it is 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.
- Credit cards accepted
- Accepts Visa and MasterCard