Mark Miller

CLIENT RESULTS

• The Burton Corp. v. Smith Sport Optics, Inc., IPR2022-00354, (PTAB 2022): Represented patent co-owners Smith Sports and Koroyd SARL and defeated competitor’s petition for inter-partes review.
• Instructure, Inc. v. Canvas Tech., Inc., (D. Utah 2022): Represented Instructure in trademark enforcement action relating to the CANVAS trademark; prevailed in obtaining a preliminary injunction stopping the defendant from any further use of the CANVAS trademark.
• ESIP Series 1, LLC et al. v. doTERRA, LLC et al., (Fed. Cir. 2020): Represented prevailing appellee Puzhen in appeal, obtaining affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement of competitor’s patent rights.
• Wing Enterprises, Inc. v. Tricam Industries, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020): Represented plaintiff-appellant Wing Enterprises in appeal of adverse summary judgment in false advertising case, obtaining reversal of the district court’s judgment.
• Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020): Represented defendant-appellee FlexSim Software in appeal of district court dismissal of competitor’s patent infringement claims, obtaining affirmance of judgment finding asserted patent claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, 958 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020): Represented Puzhen in IPR proceeding and appeal, successfully cancelling competitor’s asserted patent claims relating to diffuser technology.
• 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.