Previous Law Firm Name

• Fields, Lewis, Rost & Smith, June 1, 1995

Law Firm Overview

At Brian D. Smith, P.C, our practice is limited to patent, trademark, software, copyright, computer, unfair competition law, licensing and other intellectual property (IP) matters with an emphasis on trademark, copyright and patent litigation.

Centrally located in Denver, Colorado, the firm represents clients all across the USA as well as around the world, successfully litigating and negotiating multi-million dollar settlements of patent infringement actions both before and after trial and against both U.S. and foreign corporations.

Whether your case is large or small, we can help you. Sharing offices with Hall & Evans, a major Rocky Mountain law firm providing litigation support and counsel as needed, we are able to handle any intellectual property matter that comes in the door. For example, we recently obtained a multi-million dollar judgement in a patent infringement/unfair competition case involving, believe it or not, "vampire fangs." You can read more about the case in a Rocky Mountain News article.

How do we do it? Well, Brian Smith, firm president, is a registered patent attorney who in addition to litigating patent and trademark matters also prosecutes patent and trademark applications. Therefore, when you're talking to Brian about an infringement matter you're talking to a litigator who has a thorough understanding of patent, trademark and copyright law. You’ll receive immediate answers to your questions—not a legal brief weeks later with the inflated fees you’d get elsewhere.

The firm also prepares, files and prosecutes patent and trademark applications. Here again, Brian’s extensive litigation experience proves invaluable because it enables Brian and other firm attorneys to write patents that can stand up in court. Brian knows first hand why some patents fail in court and others succeed.

For example, patents often fail in court simply because the claims of the patent are too narrow to cover the infringing product. To prevent this from happening, every word in a patent application and its claims must be scrutinized before the patent application is filed to make sure that the invention’s scope is not limited. At the same time, the claims must be written narrowly enough to avoid the prior art (earlier patents, publications and commercialized inventions). This is a delicate balancing act which is highly time consuming but it’s something that must be done if the patent is to succeed in court.

Brian has written patents that have withstood the rigors of litigation. Brian wrote U.S. Patent No 5,319,702 which is owned by T-Netix, now Securus Technologies, which has probably been litigated more than any other patent involving Colorado inventors. The patent covers a process for detecting unauthorized phone calls and has been enforced against companies such as BellSouth, Global TelLink and others and has generated millions of dollars in settlements and licensing royalties. You can read articles about this patent and some of the settlements involving this patent in the Denver Business Journal and Business Wire.

The need to obtain strong patents is more important now than ever in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in KSR v. Teleflex, which modified the legal standard for obtaining patents. Now, both the patent office and the courts are required to consider the concept of common sense in deciding whether or not an invention is patentable; i.e. is the invention the product of ordinary skill and common sense or is it true innovation? Read this blog on the Supreme Court decision. As noted by at least one commentator, the story behind the invention now becomes important and patent attorneys who can tell the "invention story" will be in demand.

Let us tell your invention story. We have written patents in virtually all areas of technology including the medical field, telecommunications, electronics, computers, materials science, alloys, material processing, security field, toys, baby products and you guessed it, vampire fangs. Brian personally reviews every application that’s written by the firm before it’s filed in the patent office. See our Patents Overview page for more information on patents written by Brian D. Smith, P.C.

Brian is also available as a consultant and testifying expert witness to assist other attorneys with their patent and trademark matters. Contingent fee (contingency) representation and other types of affordable structured fee arrangements may be available depending on the case.

Areas of Practice

• Intellectual Property Law 100%
• Patents
• Trademarks
• Copyrights
• Patent Infringement
• Trademark and Copyright Infringement
• Domain Name Law

Classes and Seminars

• Patent Law Luncheon Seminar, Fields, Lewis, Pittenger & Rost, 1992 - 1994

Representative Clients

• CBC Products Inc.
• Fobbie LLC
• Encapsulation Technology LLC
• Bed Bath & Beyond
• Preferred Safety, Inc.
• Rio Grande Corporation
• Foothills Creations LTD
• Nolan Laboratories
• Clark Synthesis Inc.
• R K Mechanical Inc.

Representative Cases

• Shop*TV, Inc. v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and Eagle Home Products, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-0057-REB-CBS (U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado 2009)
• Amy Nugent, d/b/a Crown Chic Boutique v. Crown Chic, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-00069-WYD-KLM (U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado 2008)
• 5280 Publishing, Inc. v. 1480 Cafe LLC, Case No. 08-cv-9493 (Denver District Court 2008)
• Surevoid Products, Inc. v. Lone Star Corrugated Container Corporation d/b/a Savway Carton Forms, Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-00521 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas-Dallas Division 2008)
• Microsoft Corp. v. Microcomp Solution, Inc. and Whiting, Civil Action No. 06-cv-01365 (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2006)
• Encapsulation Technology, LLC v. Instacote, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 03-WY-1927 (U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado 2003)
• Foothills Distributing v. RAM Southwest, Inc., Civil Action No. 98-B-2360 (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1998)
• Rayburn v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America d/b/a Panasonic Co., Civil Action No. 9 (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1990)
• Rayburn et al v. Sony Corporation of America, Civil Action No. (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1990)
• Rayburn v. Ikegami Electronics, Inc., Hitachi Home Electronics, Inc, Civil Action No. (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1992)
• TM Acquisition Corp. and Super 8 Motels, Inc. v. Billie and Clark DeWitt, d/b/a Super A Motel, Civil Action No. 93-M-1739 (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1993)
• Young v. Irons Brewing Company, Civil Action No. 95-M-137 (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1995)
• Bard-Wyers Co. v. Norco Ltd., Civil Action No. 95-M-2905 (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1995)
• Baxa Corp. v. McGaw Inc. and Excelsior Medical Corp., Civil Action No. 92-B-80 (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1992)
• Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. et al. v. Wanda F. Hammitt, Individually and d/b/a Video Hits, Civil Action No. 92-N-1573 (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1992)
• Rayburn v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd., Civil Action No. 93-N-1851 (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1993)
• Clintec Nutrition Company v. Baxa Corporation, Civil Action No. 94-C-7050 (U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois-Eastern Div. 1994)
• Charlotte Odau, Diana French and B&R Plastics, Inc. v. W. T, Rogers Company andToddys of Fort Collins, Ltd., Civil Action No. 92-C-798 (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1992)
• RPS, Inc. v. Bock Specialties, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-WY-1707 (U.S. District Court of Colorado 1995)
• American International Group, Inc. v. Advanced Insurance Group, Inc., U.S. District Court of Colorado (Civil Action No. 90-F-1917 1990)

References

• CBC Products Inc.
• Rayburn Cinematographry
• Foothills Creations LTD

West Practice Categories

Intellectual Property Law, Copyrights, International Intellectual Property, Patents, Technology Licensing, Trade Dress, Trade Secrets, Trademarks, Internet -- Cyberspace, Computer Law, Domain Names, Patent Litigation, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit