Irvine, CA Patent Infringement Attorneys Serving Orange County

Patent protection dates back as early as 500 BC because it was understood early on that others should not profit from another’s inventions or ideas. US Federal law protects patent holders from infringement by individuals and corporations on designs and ideas that are registered with the United States Patent Office. This protection ensures fairness and competition within the marketplace and helps protect the inventor’s time, design, development costs, and solutions from someone simply stealing it. Dr. Michael Ahmadshahi has been an Irvine patent infringement lawyer for over 15 years in Irvine and Los Angeles, and personally holds of 3 patents of his own. We help inventors and companies file for patents, and litigate or defend against patent infringement lawsuits.

Expertise in Mechanics, Software, Hardware, Electronics and Optics

Before becoming a patent infringement lawyer in Irvine, CA, Dr. Ahmadshahi was a staff scientist with C.E. Niehoff & Co. and a Research Engineer with UC San Diego. Additionally, he has authored, or co-authored 16 articles in peer reviewed publications. You can read Michael Ahmadshahi’s biography here, but you should be confident that your case is in knowledgeable & experienced hands. We have protected countless individuals and companies pursue or defend against patent infringement actions and we can help you too. It’s critical that you take action now and call Michael today at (949) 556-8800 to schedule a consultation.

Title 35 U.S. Code Section § 271 – Patent Infringement

Typically in a valid patent infringement case, our first course of action is a cease & desist letter to put the infringing party on notice to halt activities that infringe upon your patent. This demands stopping production, advertising, sales and distribution of the product(s) in question. At that point, we can then explore potential damages that the infringing party has caused. United States Patent Code Title 25, Section 271 A, B and C protects a patent holder from infringement from another person or company:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.
(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.”

Protect Your Patent Rights Now

We have helped clients pursue or defend against blatant infringement, as well as cases where infringement is less recognizable or when licensing or royalties complicate the matter.  We have also helped numerous people with the patent application process, which can be time consuming and bureaucratic. Our Irvine patent infringement attorneys have the experience to help you, anticipate problems and defenses, and pursue alternative forms of action. In addition to patent infringement, we also represent businesses on copyright & trademark infringement and trade secrets infringement. When possible, we can resolve your matter out of court with less cost to you, or in some cases we can pursue an infringement case for a patent holder on contingency – which means you pay nothing out of pocket until we’ve successfully resolved your matter. These are determined on a case-by-case basis, so it’s important that you call us today at (949) 556-8800 to determine how to best pursue your case.

Sample Lawsuits and Outcomes

  1. Case 30-2019-01067143-CU-IP-CJC (represented defendant in trade secret misappropriation)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendant for trade secret misappropriation of its alleged trade secrets. Directed Plaintiff to dismiss the lawsuit by producing evidence that its alleged trade secrets were in the public domain and thus not protectable.
  2. Case 8:17-cv-02204-JLS-DFM (represented plaintiff in trademark infringement)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendant for infringing its registered trademark and Defendant alleged prior use. Successfully limited Defendant’s use of its mark where the parties settled the matter according to a confidential settlement agreement.
  3. Case 8:17-cv-01825-JVS-DFM (represented defendant in patent infringement)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendant for infringing its patented Extending Socket for Portable Media Player with potential damage recovery of over $10,000,000. Successfully, defended the case where the parties settled the matter according to a confidential settlement agreement with no damage recovery for plaintiff.
  4. Case 8:16-cv-01265-DOC-KES (represented plaintiff in patent infringement)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendants for infringing its patented anti-snoring device with potential damage recovery of over $1,000,000. Following a preliminary injunction proceeding, Defendants were enjoined from further infringing activities according to a settlement agreement.
  5. Case 8:16-cv-00040-JVS-KES (represented defendant in computer hacking)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging Defendant hacked into its computer system and appropriated its trade secrets relating to computer programs inside Engine Control Units of race motorcycles, in addition to breaching its contract with Plaintiff. Defendant countersued Plaintiff for copyright infringement with potential damage recovery of over $10,000,000. Following Defendant’s subpoenas of Plaintiff’s host server company’s records and discovery of Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets, the parties settled the case according to a confidential settlement agreement. 
  6. Case 2:16-cv-00012-PSG-SS (represented plaintiff in breach of contract)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendant for damages in access of $1,000,000 in a breach of contract action where Defendant refused to deliver its manufactured baby products to Plaintiff alleging Plaintiff wrongfully acquired a Chinese trademark that was identical to Defendant’s U.S. trademark. Following an unsuccessful attempt to obtain the Chinese trademark, the parties settled the case according to a settlement agreement.
  7. Case 2:15-cv-09226-PA-FFM (represented plaintiff in trade dress infringement)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendant for infringing its trade dress of its LED whip products have highly distinctive and unusual design features which are used aboard Utility Task Vehicles (UTV) with potential damage recovery of over $500,000. Following a preliminary injunction proceeding, Defendants were enjoined from further infringing activities according to a confidential settlement agreement.
  8. Case 8:11-cv-01641-DOC-JPR (represented defendant in copyright infringement)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging Defendant, its former member, infringed on its copyrighted computer programs relating to a database used in management of rental properties with potential damage recovery of over $2,000,000. Following a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction proceeding, Defendant successfully proved Plaintiff’s Work-for-Hire allegations were unsubstantiated which led the parties to settle the case according to a settlement agreement.
  9. Case 3:10-cv-01249-WHA (represented plaintiff in patent infringement)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendants for infringing its patented water purification system used in military applications with potential damage recovery of over $10,000,000. Following discovery and prior to trial, the parties settled the case according to a confidential settlement agreement. 
  10. Case 8:08-cv-02405-EAK-MAP (represented plaintiff in patent infringement)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendants for infringing its patented water purification system used in military applications with potential damage recovery of over $10,000,000. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case against Defendants in Florida in favor of reopening its case in California. 
  11. Case 8:08-cv-02404-JDW-TGW (represented plaintiff in patent infringement)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendants for infringing its patented water purification system used in military applications with potential damage recovery of over $10,000,000. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case against Defendants in Florida in favor of reopening its case in California. 
  12. Case 2:07-cv-00551-FMC-AJW (represented defendants in trademark infringement)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendants alleging Defendants infringed its trademarks by allowing counterfeit goods to be sold on Defendants’ website with potential damage recovery of over $500,000. Following discovery and prior to trial, the parties settled the case according to a confidential settlement agreement.
  13. Case 3:07-cv-01148-BZ (represented plaintiff in patent infringement)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendants for infringing its patented water purification system used in military applications with potential damage recovery of over $10,000,000. Following discovery and prior to trial, the parties settled the case according to a settlement agreement.