IP Litigation Lawyers Worldwide.

You need an IP Litigation lawyer when a dispute moves from “securing rights” to “enforcing rights.” A general IP lawyer (often called a patent or trademark prosecutor) focuses on the administrative process of getting your application approved by the government office. In contrast, an IP Litigator specializes in the adversarial courtroom process—filing lawsuits, taking depositions, and arguing before a judge. If you receive a lawsuit threat or need to stop a competitor from stealing your invention, you need a litigator’s strategic aggression and knowledge of civil procedure, not just the technical expertise of a prosecutor.

The process generally moves through five high-stakes phases: pleading, discovery, claim construction, summary judgment, and trial. After the initial complaint is filed, the “Claim Construction” hearing (often called a Markman hearing) is the pivotal moment where the judge defines exactly what the words in the patent claims mean (e.g., does “fastener” include Velcro?). This definition often dictates the outcome; once the judge rules on the meaning, the parties frequently settle or move for “Summary Judgment” to end the case before it ever reaches a jury trial.

Yes, but obtaining a preliminary injunction is one of the hardest legal battles to win because it shuts down a business before a trial has proven them guilty. A lawyer must convince the judge that you are likely to win the case eventually and that you will suffer “irreparable harm” without the injunction—harm that money alone cannot fix, such as the permanent loss of market share or brand reputation. You will also likely have to post a substantial bond to cover the competitor’s losses if the court later decides the injunction was a mistake.

A Cease and Desist letter is a formal warning that puts you on notice of an alleged violation, serving as the first step in enforcement. Ignoring it is legally dangerous because it destroys your ability to claim ignorance later; if you continue the activity, the courts may classify your actions as “willful infringement,” which can triple the damages you are ordered to pay. However, responding too aggressively can also backfire, as it might give the accuser grounds to file a “Declaratory Judgment” lawsuit against you in a court of their choosing rather than yours.

Damages are calculated to either compensate the victim or punish the infringer, often creating a choice between claiming the plaintiff’s “lost profits” or the defendant’s “ill-gotten gains” (disgorgement). In cases of intentional counterfeiting, proving exact sales numbers is often impossible because criminals don’t keep good books, so the law allows for “Statutory Damages”—a set penalty per type of good sold—which allows the plaintiff to recover significant money without needing to prove the exact dollar value of the financial injury.

Forum shopping is the strategic selection of a specific court (jurisdiction) that is perceived to be favorable to your side. In IP litigation, plaintiffs often flock to specific districts—like the Western District of Texas—known for judges who move cases quickly and juries that are statistically more likely to award large damages to patent holders. A lawyer fights to keep the case in a favorable forum or moves to transfer it to a “Venue” that is more convenient or fair, as the location alone can statistically increase the settlement value by millions.

Yes, a lawyer defends against Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or “trolls” by attacking the validity of the weapon itself—the patent. Instead of just arguing “we didn’t steal it,” a lawyer often files an “Inter Partes Review” (IPR) with the patent office to prove that the troll’s patent is invalid because the technology already existed (prior art) before they claimed it. This strategy moves the fight out of expensive federal courts and into a specialized administrative tribunal, often forcing the troll to drop the lawsuit or settle for pennies on the dollar.

Discovery in trade secret cases is uniquely paradoxical: you must reveal your secret to the court to prove it was stolen, which risks revealing it to the public. To solve this, lawyers negotiate strict “Protective Orders” with an “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation. This ensures that the sensitive documents—like source code or chemical formulas—can only be seen by the outside lawyers and independent experts, legally barring the opposing company’s executives from ever looking at the evidence to prevent them from learning the very secrets they are accused of stealing.