MARK HELPS CLIENTS INCREASE THEIR BUSINESS VALUE THROUGH ENFORCING THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DEFENDING AGAINST IMPROPER ATTACKS. HE HAS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN PATENT, TRADEMARK, AND TRADE SECRET LITIGATION IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS NATIONWIDE, THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, AND IN FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL.
As a registered patent attorney, Mark is uniquely skilled in patent infringement litigation in federal court and post-grant proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He has litigated patent infringement actions in federal courts across the country and in the U.S. International Trade Commission. Mr. Miller also has significant expertise with trademark and trade secret litigation in federal courts, as well as inter partes proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Education & Admissions
Brigham Young University (J.D., 2002), cum laude
University of Utah (B.S., 1998)
- United States Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Ninth, Tenth and Federal Circuits
- U.S. District Courts for the Districts of Utah, Colorado, Northern Texas
- U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Judge Dee Benson, 2002-2003
- United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, Judge Randall Rader, 2003-2004
- Hydro Engineering, Inc. v. Petter Investments, Inc., (D. Utah 2017): Represented Hydro Engineering in trade secrets jury trial against rival competitor, obtaining $5 million verdict.
- Honeywell v. The Code Corp, (ITC 2018): In a patent infringement case involving remote bar code scanning technology, represented defendants in defending against allegations of infringing 6 patents, resulting in a mutually agreeable settlement.
- Parah, LLC and Ozonics, LLC v. MoJack Distributors, LLC (D. Kan 2018): Represented patent owner in enforcement actions against an infringing competitor; successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, which ultimately led to a settlement resolution including a court-ordered permanent injunction.
- Vita-Mix, Inc. v. Blendtec, Inc., (N.D. Ohio 2017): Represented Blendtec in defending against allegations of patent infringement from competitor; achieved summary judgment of non-infringement resulting in dismissal of the case.
- Petter Investments, Inc. v. Hydro Engineering, Inc., (D. Utah 2015): Represented Utah company accused of infringing three patents owned by competitor as well as false advertising and unfair competition claims; successfully obtained summary judgment of no infringement on all three patents and dismissal of all other claims.
- Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC v. Bridgeport-Schrader et al, (D. Delaware 2015): In a patent infringement case involving remote tire pressure monitoring technology, successfully obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement on behalf of the defendants against a plaintiff financed by one of the world's largest NPEs.
- Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 CONTACTS, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012): Represented 1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. on appeal, where cancellation of competitor's trademark registration was affirmed.
- 1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2012): Represented 1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. on appeal in a trademark infringement action, obtaining partial reversal of adverse summary judgment.
- K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012): Represented K-TEC, Inc. on appeal in a patent infringement action, obtaining affirmance of $24 million judgment. Jury's willful infringement verdict was affirmed.
- K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., (D. Utah 2010): Represented K-TEC, Inc., in a patent infringement suit against Vita-Mix Corporation, and won a willful infringement verdict after a 9-day jury trial, and successfully defended the verdict on appeal.
- Petter Investments v. Hydro Engineering, (W.D. Mich. 2009): Represented Hydro Engineering in a case involving cross-claims for patent infringement, and won summary judgment in Hydro's favor on all issues.
- Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,228, 95/000,339: Represented the patent owner to defend the validity of two patents. All claims in each patent were confirmed valid without amendment.
- Reexamination Control No. 95/001,016: Represented a third party requester challenging the validity of its competitor's patent. All claims in the patent were cancelled.
- Primos, Inc. v. Hunder's Specialties, 451 F.3d 841 (Fed. Cir. 2006): Represented Primos, Inc. on appeal in a patent infringement action. The jury's willful infringement verdict was affirmed.
News & Resources
News & Press Mentions
June 25, 2019
15 Dorsey Lawyers in Salt Lake City Selected for Inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2019 and 2019 Lawyers of the Year
August 15, 2018
May 23, 2018
February 23, 2018
February 22, 2018
February 22, 2018
February 22, 2018
February 22, 2018
Industries & Practices
- Energy & Natural Resources
- Food, Beverage & Agribusiness
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Patent Prosecution, Portfolio Strategy & Management
- Trademark, Copyright, Advertising & Brand Management
- The Best Lawyers in America© Litigation – Intellectual Property, 2015-2016, 2018-2020; Patent Law, Trademark Law, 2016, 2018-2020
- Recognized in IAM Patent 1000 - World's Leading Patent Practitioners, 2019
- Benchmark Litigation, Future Star, 2018
- Utah Business Magazine, Utah Legal Elite, Intellectual Property
- Utah Business Magazine, Top 40 Under 40, 2012
- Recognized as an “IP Star” in 2018-2019 by Managing Intellectual Property Handbook
- Mountain States Super Lawyers®, IP Litigation, Rising Star, 2008, 2010-2013
- Mountain States Super Lawyers®, IP Litigation, 2017 and 2019