Lathrop GPM’s intellectual property litigation practice group protects innovation, brand value and market share for clients in industries nationwide. We combine technical knowledge with courtroom experience to resolve patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret disputes efficiently and strategically. Our goal is to help businesses protect what drives their success.

Our attorneys have litigated more than 180 IP cases filed in U.S. district courts since 2020. We are trusted by leading innovators, emerging companies and household-name brands to defend their most valuable assets and achieve favorable results.

Why Choose Us?

Full-Service IP Litigation Practice

Lathrop GPM’s litigators handle every type of IP dispute. We represent clients in complex cases involving patent, trademark, trade dress and copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition in courts across the country.

Our experience spans industries including consumer products, medical devices, software, logistics, manufacturing and professional services. We tailor legal strategies to fit each client’s business goals and technical realities.

National Reach, Local Insight

With offices in key markets across the United States, our attorneys provide responsive and high-quality representation wherever clients operate. We combine national litigation strength with a practical understanding of local courts and industries.

Technical and Industry Experience

Our ranks include engineers and former judicial clerks, allowing us to navigate complex technical and legal questions with precision. Clients trust Lathrop GPM to address the challenges of IP litigation, leveraging deep industry experience and a multidisciplinary approach.

Substantive Areas

Patent Litigation

We represent utility and design patent holders and accused infringers nationwide. Our team has litigated patents in industries ranging from consumer products and software to medical device and manufacturing. Clients rely on us to address complex legal and technical issues and to pursue efficient, effective resolutions.

Trademark Litigation

Our trademark litigators protect and defend brands across industries. We represent clients in federal and state courts and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Our work includes claims involving infringement, trade dress, counterfeiting, oppositions, cancellations and unfair competition. From startups to Fortune 500 companies, clients rely on our ability to safeguard brand identity.

Copyright Litigation

We enforce and defend copyrights for clients in traditional and technology-driven industries. Our team’s courtroom reputation provides leverage to resolve disputes before trial and our litigation experience ensures clients are well positioned if trial becomes necessary.

Trade Secret Litigation

Lathrop GPM’s trade secret litigators combine IP and employment law experience to protect proprietary information and competitive advantage. We represent clients under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and state laws, addressing misappropriation, confidentiality and unfair competition disputes.

Additional IP Dispute Capabilities

Our attorneys also handle related matters, including:

  • False advertising and deceptive trade practices
  • False labeling and product claims litigation
  • Unfair competition and consumer protection claims
  • Rights of publicity and defamation
  • Counterfeiting investigations and enforcement
  • Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings
  • Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings
  • U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations
  • Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution proceedings
Meet the Team

Primary Contacts

Proven Experience

Lathrop GPM’s IP litigation team is trusted by high-profile clients to defend their most valuable IP. Our representative matters reflect the complexity and diversity of the disputes we handle, the successful outcomes we achieve and the confidence that leading innovators and established brands place in our ability to protect their business interests in courtrooms and administrative proceedings nationwide.

Patent Litigation

Consumer Products

  • Munchkin, Inc. v. TOMY International, Inc. (N.D. Ill.). Serve as lead counsel for Munchkin in a patent infringement suit involving a best-selling spill-proof drinking vessel. Secured a jury verdict finding the defendant willfully infringed both a design and utility patent. The case centers on a competing product sold under a well-known brand and featuring licensed characters. After a five-day trial, the jury awarded the client over $3.9 million in damages.
  • Boost Oxygen, LLC v. Oxygen Plus, Inc. (D. Minn., Fed. Cir.). Defended a client against design patent infringement claims and contempt claims brought by a competitor. Achieved dismissal of claims.
  • Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC v. Munchkin, Inc. (D. Conn., C.D. Cal., ITC, PTAB, Fed. Cir.). Represented Munchkin in defense of patent infringement claims and related appeals pertaining to popular diaper pail refill products.

  • Polywad Inc. v. Federal Cartridge Company (M.D. Ga.). Represented defendants in their dispute with Polywad involving ballistic technologies.
  • The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. v. BabyBjorn AB (W.D. Tex.). Represented a plaintiff in a patent dispute against competitor BabyBjorn AB relating to baby carrier products.
  • ZGrills, Inc. v. American Outdoor Brands (W.D. Mo.). Represent a plaintiff in prosecution of design patent and trade dress claims relating to popular pellet grill designs.
  • BabyBjorn AB The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. (C.D. Cal.). Represented a defendant in a patent dispute filed by competitor BabyBjorn AB relating to baby bouncer products.

Software

  • Concaten, Inc. (D. Colo., Fed. Cir.). Obtained judgment on the pleadings invalidating all five asserted patents as directed to ineligible subject matter. At issue was technology that helped guide state transportation departments’ winter maintenance decisions. Argued appeal before the Federal Circuit, which affirmed.
  • CellTrust Corporation v. ionLake (D. Minn., Fed. Cir.). Represent a plaintiff in its enforcement of two of its software-related patents against a competitor at trial and on appeal.
  • SynMax, Inc. v. Kayrros SAS (S.D. Tex.). Represented SynMax in a declaratory judgment action to invalidate Kayrros’ satellite imagery patent following a cease-and-desist letter. Case settled favorably with acknowledgment of non-infringement.
  • AOB Products Company v. Vista Outdoor Sales LLC (D. Minn.). Defended a publicly traded outdoor products manufacturer client in a patent case relating to ammunition reloading software. Case successfully resolved following argument on client’s motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter eligibility (Section 101) for the asserted patent.
  • GeoTag, Inc. v. Alco Stores, Inc. (E.D. Tex.). Represented retail chain in massive, 400+ defendant lawsuit against patent infringement claims made by NPE involving software systems allowing for the online search of information within a particular geographical area.

Transportation

  • Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC v. Sand Revolution LLC (W.D. Tex., PTAB). Represented a plaintiff logistics company in prosecution of patent infringement claims pertaining to modular proppant handling systems used in the hydraulic fracture drilling process.

Medical Device and Healthcare

  • Omnia Medical, LLC v. PainTEQ, LLC (M.D. Fla.). Represented a medical device company in the enforcement of its patents and other IP rights against PainTEQ. Case settled favorably with PainTEQ admitting infringement.
  • ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc. (D. Kan., Fed. Cir.). Represented a plaintiff in prosecution of patent claims and related appeals relating to robotics-based pharmacy packing and sorting solutions.
  • Zebra Technologies Corp. v. Typenex Medical LLC (N.D. Ill., E.D. Mo.). Defended clients against utility patent infringement claims relating to identification wristbands used in the medical industry and against related claims for trademark and trade dress infringement.

Trademark Litigation

  • Omnia Medical, LLC v. PainTEQ, LLC (M.D. Fla.). Represented a medical device company in the enforcement of its trademarks, patents and other IP rights against competitor PainTEQ. Case settled favorably with PainTEQ admitting infringement.
  • Music Makers Holdings LLC v. The Piano Studio (TTAB). Successfully opposed an application to register BACH N ROLL MUSIC ACADEMY on behalf of client, owner of the BACH TO ROCK® music schools. After full administrative trial on the merits, TTAB panel agreed with Lathrop GPM’s arguments that the applied-for mark would likely cause confusion with client’s marks.
  • Mayson-Dixon Strategic Consulting, LLC v. Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategic Consulting, Inc. (D. Md.). Obtained a preliminary injunction for a political polling/consulting firm client in a trademark infringement and unfair competition matter.
  • New Prime Inc., d/b/a Prime Inc. v. Amazon Logistics, Inc. (W.D. Mo., TTAB). Represented a national transportation and logistics provider in prosecution of trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition claims.
  • New Prime, Inc., d/b/a Prime Inc. v. Prime Group Holdings, LLC (C.D. Cal., TTAB). Represented a national transportation and logistics provider in prosecution of claims for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition, and for cancellation of trademark registration.
  • New Prime, Inc., d/b/a Prime Inc. v. Prime Logistics Corp. (N.D. Ill.). Represented a national transportation and logistics provider in prosecution of claims for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition against Prime Logistics Corp.
  • Polywad, Inc. v. Able's Sporting, Inc. (M.D. Ga.). Represent defendants against trademark infringement allegations by Polywad.
  • Tivity Health, Inc. v. Prime Inc. (TTAB). Defended large transportation and logistics company in a TTAB opposition proceeding filed against a client’s pending application. Matter settled.
  • Prosper Funding LLC v. Splitit Payment (S.D. Tex.). Represented a fintech plaintiff client in a trademark infringement suit against competitor Splitit Payment. At issue was the stylized S design of our client’s logo. The case settled favorably.

Copyright Litigation

  • Energy Intelligence Group, Inc. v. CHS McPherson Refinery, Inc. (D. Kan.). Defended a refinery client in a copyright infringement matter through a four-day jury trial, obtaining a defense verdict in which plaintiffs' recovery was approximately two percent of the requested $50 million award.
  • WMTI Productions, Inc. v. Propagate Content, LLC (C.D. Cal.). Defended an independent content creation company against allegations that two of its hidden camera prank television shows infringed copyright in earlier shows. The case settled.
  • Campbell v. Vox Media, Inc. and Buzzfeed, Inc. (W.D. Mo.). Acted as lead counsel for an entertainment and media company in a copyright infringement case. The plaintiff alleged infringement of copyright in a photograph.

Trade Secret Litigation

  • Critical Response Group, Inc. v. GeoComm, Inc. (S.D. Iowa). Represented a leading provider of public safety technology solutions against a competitor’s claims for copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract. Lathrop GPM successfully obtained summary judgment on the copyright, trade dress and trade secret claims, which significantly narrowed the case and directly led to a settlement.
  • Blattner Energy, Inc. v. Jones (D. Minn.). Represented a leading renewable energy company in its assertion of trade secret misappropriation against former employees and a competitor in state and federal court in Minnesota.

False Advertising and Unfair Competition

  • Munchkin, Inc. v. Playtex Products, LLC (C.D. Cal.). Represented Munchkin in defense of false advertising and unfair competition claims involving diaper pail systems.