Practice Areas
- Amicus Support & Shaping the Law
- Anti-SLAPP Motions & Appeals
- Business & Commercial Law
- California Supreme Court & Court of Appeal
- Class Actions
- Consumer Law
- Entertainment Law
- Federal Appellate Practice
- First Amendment
- Healthcare Litigation
- Insurance Litigation
- Intellectual Property
- Labor & Employment Litigation
- Premises Liability
- Pro Bono
- Products Liability & Toxic Torts
- Professional Responsibility & Liability
- Public Entity Liability
- Punitive Damages
- Real Property Litigation
- Trial Consultation
Horvitz & Levy has represented clients in a diverse array of intellectual property appeals involving copyrights and trademarks, rights of publicity, scientific discoveries, and trade secrets. The key to our success is simple. We distill complex facts and legal arguments and present them in a clear and thoughtful manner to appellate judges who often lack the IP expertise of our clients.
Our attorneys have experience across a wide spectrum of IP issues. We have briefed or argued cutting-edge trade secrets issues (such as whether business projections and estimates may be protected and the alleged use of trade secrets to establish a competing company), copyright issues (including the copyright misuse doctrine and novel issues relating to damages for infringement), trademark issues (including false advertising, priority in using marks, the scope of nationwide and international injunctions, and the defense of laches), and the use of brand-name drug patents to block generic competitors.
Our efforts have been resoundingly successful. We have reduced or eliminated millions of dollars in unwarranted jury verdicts. We have preserved a client’s nine-figure award of royalty payments. And we have won cases in both the federal and state courts that have shaped the law to favor our clients’ interests.
Contact Peder K. Batalden or Eric S. Boorstin for more information about our Intellectual Property practice.
Intellisoft, Ltd. v. Acer America Corporation
California Court of Appeal affirms defense summary judgment in $157.7 million trade secrets misappropriation action.
Read MoreSanchez v. Ghost Management Group
Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of trademark infringement action.
Read MoreViasat v. Acacia Communications
California Court of Appeal affirms $49 million breach of contract verdict in complex commercial dispute involving misuse of intellectual property.
Read MoreCarr v. AutoNation
Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of trade secrets action against Horvitz & Levy's client
Read MoreSan Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Productions
Ninth Circuit saves defendants from financial ruin by staying enforcement of trademark infringement injunction and $4 million judgment pending appeal.
Read MoreSingh Educational Services v. Blueprint Test Preparation LLC
Court of Appeal rejects competitor’s attempt to shut down test preparation company in alleged theft of trade secrets action.
Read MoreDon Johnson Productions, Inc. v. Rysher Entertainment
California Court of Appeal reduces judgment in favor of actor Don Johnson from $53.2 million to $15 million in dispute arising out of a production contract’s copyright provision.
Read MoreChristoff v. Nestlé USA, Inc.
California Supreme Court applies single-publication rule to unauthorized commercial use of likeness in right of publicity case, eliminating our client’s exposure to more than $10 million in damages.
Read MoreOmega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Ninth Circuit holds that “first sale doctrine” does not provide a defense to an infringement action involving foreign-made, nonpiratical copies of a copyrighted work.
Read MoreCity of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc.
California Supreme Court affirms $300 million compensatory damages award for underpayment of patent royalties
Read MoreSan Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Productions
Ninth Circuit motion to stay enforcement of trademark infringement judgment, arguing that multi-million dollar award is unlikely to survive appeal.
Read MoreOmega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Ninth Circuit brief arguing that designer of luxury watches did not misuse its copyright in an artistic design by enforcing the exclusive rights conferred by that copyright to control the distribution of the copyrighted design as engraved on its watches.
Read MorePractice Areas
- Amicus Support & Shaping the Law
- Anti-SLAPP Motions & Appeals
- Business & Commercial Law
- California Supreme Court & Court of Appeal
- Class Actions
- Consumer Law
- Entertainment Law
- Federal Appellate Practice
- First Amendment
- Healthcare Litigation
- Insurance Litigation
- Intellectual Property
- Labor & Employment Litigation
- Premises Liability
- Pro Bono
- Products Liability & Toxic Torts
- Professional Responsibility & Liability
- Public Entity Liability
- Punitive Damages
- Real Property Litigation
- Trial Consultation