At Hardy, Parish, Yang, LLP, our clients’ needs are our highest priority. We rely on our legal knowledge and experience in Intellectual Property law to advocate on behalf of our clients within highly-technical and complex legal subject matter.
Intellectual property matters tend to involve sophisticated technology from a variety of industries, including electronics and electrical engineering, medical, software, telecommunications, biotechnology, mechanical design, energy/oil & gas, and more. This makes it particularly essential that you partner with a skilled intellectual property attorney. Hardy, Parish, Yang, LLP possesses the experience and skills to effectively navigate highly-technical legal disputes and litigation as we pursue an outcome that aligns with your interests.
The attorneys at Hardy, Parish, Yang, LLP are well-versed in intellectual property litigation matters including:
• Patent Litigation
• Inter Partes Review (IPR)
• Covered Business Method Reviews
• Trade Secret Litigation
• Trademark Litigation
• Copyright Litigation
The lawyers at HPY have a broad range of experience in handling patent litigation matters, from defending a Fortune 100 company against claims for patent infringement to representing individual inventors and other patent owners in enforcing their patent rights in trial and IPR proceedings. . Mitch Yang, a former patent examiner with the U.S, Patent and Trademark Office who received his J.D. from the George Washington University School of Law and his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Maryland, has extensive experience with a wide array of technologies. He regularly handles IPR proceedings in addition to patent enforcement litigation. Victor Hardy, who received his LLM from Harvard and his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law, has extensive experience in patent valuation, due diligence and acquisition, in addition to patent enforcement litigation and IPR proceedings. Bill Parrish, who received his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law has handled numerous trade secret, trademark, copyright, and unfair competition cases, in addition to his work on patent cases.
We understand that patent litigation can often be too expensive for small patent owners to effectively protect their rights through traditional IP law firms. That is one reason why, in appropriate circumstances, HPY offers contingent fee, fixed fee, and/or mixed contingent / hourly fee options. Unlike many large firms, HPY has the ability to be flexible on fees. We will explore with you the different alternative fee arrangements that fit your needs.
We serve our clients all across the United States.
The following are a few examples of cases our lawyers have been involved in handling:
- Represented a plaintiff technology company against competitor company and competitor’s CEO who improperly accessed plaintiff’s computer systems and stole trade secret information. Resulted in a successful settlement for client.
- Representation of plaintiff technology company against competitor and plaintiff’s former employee who stole plaintiffs trade secrets and took them to the competitor. Resulted in successful settlement for client.
- Representation of plaintiff formulary company against competitor and former employee for theft of trade secret formula. Resulted in successful settlement for client
- Representation of manufacturer and distributor of products against competitor in suit for trademark infringement, unfair competition and cancelation of competitor’s federally registered trademark. Resulted in successful settlement for client.
- Representation of defendant manufacturing and distribution of product in copyright infringement claim brought by plaintiff who defendant believed falsely claimed to own the copyright. Resulted in successful resolution for the client.
- Representation of defendant bank in suit for trademark infringement claim brought by bank with similar name. Resulted in denial of injunction sought by opponent and successful resolution for client.
- Representation of defendant retail store in suit brought by competitor for trademark/trade name infringement. After one week hearing, client prevailed and was able to continue using its trademark and tradename.