Cases We’ve Handled

We Have the Experience that Matters.

Michael Ahmadshahi, PhD, Law Offices has handled numerous cases involving Intellectual Property litigation. We have both pursued and protected against infringement matters and other business claims. These matters can be very complex, and it’s critical to hire an attorney who has the experience to represent you and your unique case. Call us today at (949)556-8800 or contact us online to schedule an appointment and get your questions answered.

  1. Case 8:19-cv-01983-DOC-JDE (represented defendant in trade secret misappropriation and violation of the California Computer Data Access Fraud Act (Cal. Pen. Code § 502))
    1. Plaintiff Ex-Employer sued Defendant Employee and Co-Defendant New-Employer alleging Employee accessed Plaintiff’s trade secrets without authorization and transferred them to his New-Employer. Successfully defended the Employee where Plaintiff and Employee settled the matter according to a settlement agreement with no damage recovery for Plaintiff.
  2. Case 19STCV11008 (represented defendant in a defamation case)
    1. Plaintiff Movie Star sued Defendants alleging defamation, violation of right of publicity and related causes of action.
  3. Case 2:19-cv-07586-MRW (represented defendant in a trademark infringement case)
    1. Plaintiff sued Defendant Competitor alleging trademark infringement. Defendant countersued for trademark infringement as well as copyright infringement. 
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Case 8:16-cv-00040-JVS-KES (represented defendant in trade secret misappropriation and violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030))
    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. 
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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. 
  13. 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. 
  14. 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. 
  15. 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.
  16. 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.