Your Intellectual Property and technology are among your most important assets.

Whether you are a solo inventor or a company whose growth depends on its IP, we understand that you worked hard on your ideas and your brand. When you choose LTL, you will have a partner who will fight with you so you can protect those assets and enforce your business strategy. We are a dedicated team of trial attorneys with the aptitude to understand your technology and IP, and the experience and skill to distill complicated information into a winning litigation strategy.

We are relentless advocates and are ready to vigorously protect your rights and enforce your patents, copyrights, trade secrets, or trademarks, no matter how large or small the adversary. We represent individuals and business of all sizes from a variety of industries, including:

  • medical devices
  • materials and plastics
  • agricultural or mechanical equipment
  • personal electronic devices
  • toys, clothes, shoes, athletic equipment
  • lighting and LEDs
  • biotech

And what if you are hit with a lawsuit? We are equally adept at defending our clients when they find themselves on the receiving end of an IP or technology-related complaint. We work quickly and efficiently to get ahead of the allegations and concentrate the case on its core issues. We then develop a laser-focused defense strategy, avoiding excessive discovery that needlessly sidetracks the litigation and runs up fees.


Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosmetic Warriors Case No. 15-cv-4950

The firm represented Pinkette in a declaratory judgment case against Cosmetic Warriors in the Northern District of California. After a 6-day trial, the jury found in favor of Pinkette on a laches theory and Pinkette defended that verdict in post-trial motions and on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

KAIFI LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. Case No. 20-cv-0280.

Represented Plaintiffs in a patent infringement case filed against Verizon in the Eastern District of Texas. After a flurry of pre-trial motions, including motions for summary judgment and motions in limine, Defendants settled on the eve of trial.

Au New Haven v. YKK Corp., Case No. 15-cv-3411

Defended YKK in a case for breach of contract, patent infringement, false advertising and unfair competition in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff sought damages for hundreds of millions of dollars. After a series of summary judgment motions, motions in limine, and a sanctions motion against Plaintiff for hiding critical evidence, the claims were narrowed. Trial was then bifurcated. At the first trial, YKK obtained a favorable jury verdict, which in combination with the Court’s rulings on YKK’s pre-trial motions, set the case a successful mediation on the eve of the second trial.

Ironhawk Technologies, Inc. v., Inc., et al Case No. 2:17-CV-08277.

Represented Plaintiff in a trademark and unfair competition case filed against Salesforce in the Central District of California. Obtained a quick favorable settlement. 

Yamato Holdings Co. LTD. et al v. Anxin Wood Products Corp. et al Case No. 2:17-CV-01045

Represented Plaintiff in a breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair competition case in the Central District of California. We sought a preliminary injunction for our client and the case settled on favorable terms after we filed that motion.

Newegg, Inc. v. Ezra Sutton, P.A., et al Case No. 2:15-CV-01395

Filed a copyright infringement claim against Defendant in the Central District of California. The case settled on favorable terms after we filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. DNP Int’l Co., Inc., Case No. 11-00788-GMS. Defended DNP International in a false advertising and patent infringement dispute in the District of Delaware regarding health supplements. After the Markman hearing, Plaintiff’s settled the case on favorable terms.

Wistron Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 16-cv-6037

Defended Microsoft in a breach of contract action filed in the Northern District of California.

We vigorously opposed Plaintiffs’ attempt to amend their pleadings. The case settled 20 days after our Opposition was filed. Plaintiff did not wait for the Court’s ruling on their motion to amend.

Glassey et al v. Microsemi Inc et al Case No. 14-cv-3629

Defended Microsemi in a patent infringement case filed in the Northern District of California. The Court granted our Motion to Dismiss ending the dispute quickly and efficiently.

Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. Vizio, Inc. Case No. 17-cv-00010

Represented Vizio in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The Court granted our Motion to dismiss resolving the case quickly and efficiently.

Hyundai Motor Am., Inc. et al v. Depo Auto Parts Industrial Co., Ltd. Case No. 8:18-CV-02151

Defended Depo Auto Parts in a patent infringement case filed in the Central District of California. After filing a motion to dismiss the complaint, Plaintiff engaged in settlement discussions and the case resolved soon thereafter.

Our attorneys have also represented:

Nike in trademark and design patent case where plaintiff sought over $60 million in damages; Prevailed on summary judgment and the decision was affirmed on appeal. in a patent infringement suit filed in the Northern District of California. Case was settled under very favorable terms.

Microsoft against patent infringement suit brought in the Southern District of Florida.

Symantec Corporation in several patent infringement cases in the Northern district of California and the District of Delaware.

Firm News