Stefan is an attorney in the firm’s Trial Group, focusing on intellectual property litigation. He has significant experience in counseling clients in disputes over license agreements, software development agreements, patents, and trade secrets. Stefan is also committed to pro bono work, and has represented pro bono clients through trial in federal court, administrative hearings, and on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.
On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Google v. Oracle, ruling 6-2 in Google’s favor on the issue of fair use. So ends a decade-plus battle between two tech giants that many viewed as having the potential to reshape how computer continue reading...
Does the Lanham Act require a plaintiff to show a likelihood of confusion to prevail on a counterfeiting claim? And if so, should the court simply compare the marks at issue, or look beyond them to the products themselves and other marketplace factors bearing on continue reading...
On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Google v. Oracle, a decade-long battle challenging Oracle’s claim to own copyrights in certain aspects of its Java software platform that Google implemented in Android phones without taking a license. We’ve been tracking this case continue reading...
On August 7, 2020, Google and Oracle submitted their final written arguments to the Supreme Court regarding their decade-long copyright battle over the source code animating the Android platform. Now, we focus on the second question presented to the Supreme Court: whether Google’s copying of continue reading...
In our prior post, we introduced the controversy at the center of “the copyright lawsuit of the decade” between Google and Oracle. Since then, both parties and 61 amici have submitted their briefs to the Supreme Court. This post focuses on the first question before continue reading...
On November 15, 2019, the Supreme Court granted cert in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. For many observers, this was a long time coming; the parties have been litigating the underlying case since August 2010, and from its inception Google v. Oracle has been continue reading...
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Iancu v. NantKwest, Inc., which will determine whether unsuccessful applicants before the United States Patent and Trademark Office who elect to challenge adverse decisions before the district court must—win or lose—pay the PTO’s attorney’s fees. continue reading...
On September 17, 2018, Judge Steven V. Wilson of the federal court of the Central District of California ruled on General Motors’ motion for summary judgment in Falkner v. GM, a copyright action concerning graffiti artists’ ability to protect their work from infringement by photographers. continue reading...
Last month we blogged about Falkner v. General Motors Co.—a federal court action filed earlier this year that may decide whether graffiti artists can enforce their copyrights in graffiti appearing on publicly-viewable buildings when photographed and distributed without their consent. As we detailed in our continue reading...
Is graffiti protectable under the Copyright Act? In principle, yes because it is a graphic art. But graffiti tends to appear on buildings that are visible from a public place, and photographs of such buildings are exempt from copyright infringement suits. So what happens if continue reading...
Jeffrey CadwellJeff advises clients on the availability, registrability, and stre...
Michael KeyesJ. Michael Keyes is an intellectual property attorney with exten...
Kaleb McNeelyAs a partner in the Trial Group, Kaleb practices primarily in the ...
Sarah RobertsonSarah has over fifteen years’ experience helping clients prot...
Fara SunderjiFara assists clients in the development and execution of all type...
Charlene KroghCharlene Krogh is a Partner in Dorsey’s top-ranked Tradem...
Evan EveristEvan is a partner in Dorsey’s Trademark, Copyright and Adverti...
