Texas A & M University System v. Genomic FX, L.P.,aka GeneticFX, L.P.; GenomicFX Holdings, Inc.; GenomicFX Inc.; Thomas Burnell; Jeremy Taylor; Scott Davis; Sara Davis and Jay Hetzel, Cause No. GV-101913, in the District Court of Travis County, Texas; 250th Judicial District. Dr. McDaniel represented Defendant Jeremy Taylor in this alleged misappropriation of trade secrets involving intricate genetic and genomic analyses of beef cattle.

Computer Sciences Corp. v. Policy Management Systems Corp, Neuronworks Pty., Ltd., Paul John Edward Beinat, dba Beinat Consulting Pty., Ltd., Beinat Investments Pty., Ltd.; Graham Stanley Bartholomew, dba Bartholomew Consulting Pty, Ltd., Goodwords Pty., Ltd.; Nicolas Alvin Townsend dba Townsend Software Pty., Ltd.; Barry James Hornery dba Hornery Investments Pty., Ltd., Noworks Pty., Ltd., Case No. A 00CA033SS in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Dr. McDaniel, along with a team of attorneys from Conley Rose & Tayon, George & Donaldson, and Phillips Fox represented the Plaintiff in a misappropriation of trade secrets case, involving sophisticated insurance software. The case ended in a settlementfavorable to CSC as a result of a mini-trial outcome.

Zachry Construction Corp. and H.B. Zachry Company v. The Shaw Group, Inc., Ralph Wilson, and Joseph St. Julian, In the District Court of 288th Judicial District, Bexar County, Texas, removed to federal court. On behalf of The Shaw Group, Inc., accused of misappropriation and theft of trade secrets involving construction industry software. Dr. McDaniel attorney for The Shaw Group, Inc.. This case was settled favorable for our client.

Choice! Energy (NE), Limited Partnership, Choice! Power & Light, Inc. and choice! Energy, L.P. v. Samuel C. Kilpatrick, William H. Tompkins, Prebon Financial Products, Inc., Arthur Hughes and Carmine Capobianco, Civil Action No. H-99-0370, in the United State District Court for the Southern District Court, Houston, Division. Dr. McDaniel represented an ex-employee accused of trade secret misappropriation.

Little Saigon Radio Broadcasting, Inc. v. Douglas Broadcasting, Inc. et al., District Court of Harris County, Texas, 190th Judicial District, C.A. 97-45719. This case was a trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation case of Dr. McDaniel successfully assisted lead attorneys in securing a preliminary injunction against competitive radio station that had taken over broadcast frequency and was using same name as our client.

Baylor College of Medicine v. Taghi Manshouri, District Court of Harris County, Texas, 165th Judicial District, C.A. 93-037411. A biotechnology trade secret misappropriation case in which Dr. McDaniel was successful in obtaining an ex parte TRO.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT/PATENT INTERFERENCE/PATENT APPEAL

First Defence II, Inc. v. Texas Commercial Fence, Inc., United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division, C.A. A96CA205ADA. In this patent infringement matter, Dr. McDaniel (co-lead counsel) successfully asserted a patent owned by First Defence that was directed to a novel prison fencing system. He was able to obtain a jury verdict that the patent was not invalid, that the claims were infringed, and the client was awarded damages against Texas Commercial Fence. A consent judgment pursuant to a settlement was entered in the case resulting in a strong permanent injunction against the infringer. The client’s patent position, covering its sole product, was substantially strengthened.

Celebrity, Inc. v. Lincoln Imports LTD, Inc., United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, C.A. 1:95CV814. In this declaratory judgment action, Dr. McDaniel (lead counsel) successfully represented the DJ defendant, Lincoln Imports. Lincoln imports owned a patented Christmas tree stand device that was being manufactured and sold by Celebrity without a license. Celebrity sought a declaration from the court that its activities did not infringe Lincoln Imports’ patent. The matter was settled resulting in an agreed dismissal with prejudice against Celebrity and in a non-exclusive license under the patent. The settlement netted guaranteed royalties to Lincoln and strengthened the client’s patent position.

Patent Interference No. 103,352, Perez-Soler et al. v. Khokhar et al. v. Khokhar et al. v. Maeda et al. which interference was filed in the Civil Action No. 1:00CV02242, Aronex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sumitomo Pharmaceuticals Company Ltd.; in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. McDaniel represented Aronex Pharmaceuticals in this interference and district court case. This was a patent interference between Japanese pharmaceutical giant Sumitomo Pharmaceuticals and Aronex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The technology involved sophisticated anti-cancer pharmaceuticals.

Patent Appeal No.: 1997-2138, In Re: C. Steven McDaniel, Frank M. Raushel, and James R. Wild which interference was filed in Cause No. 01-1307, In Re: C. Steven McDaniel, Frank M. Raushel, and James R. Wild in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This case is arguing novelty of patent claims in a biotechnology patent. Dr. McDaniel represents the Appellants in this case which is still pending for judgment before the Federal Circuit.

BACK TO TOP


TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

Texas Heart Institute v. Texas Heart Center, Case Number H-00-1769, in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas. Dr. McDaniel represented Texas Heart Institute (“THI”) in this lawsuit concerning infringement by “Texas Heart Center” of THI’s marks. Settlement was reached that Defendant would cease all use of THI’s marks.

Aronex Pharmaceuticals v. Biogen, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, C.A. H 97-1487. Dr. McDaniel (lead counsel) successfully concluded a declaratory judgment action brought by Aronex against Biogen. Biogen had asserted its registered marks AVONEX and ERONEX in order to cause Aronex to drop all use of the mark ARONEX, including such usage as the corporate name of Aronex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The litigation was favorably settled for Aronex in a manner to allow it to continue most use of the word ARONEX so long as that word was not used in a classical trademark sense.

Igloo Products Corp. v. Brantex, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas—Houston Division, C.A. H-96-1620. Dr. McDaniel (assisted as local counsel) for trademark dispute surrounding insulated soft-sided beverage containers.

BACK TO TOP


COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Bridal Gown Cases

Reported decision on a first injunction in Eve of Milady v. Impression Bridal, Inc., 957 F.Supp. 484 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)(able to avoid a general recall of the client’s allegedly infringing dresses from its distributors even though these designs were held by the Court to infringe Milady’s copyrights). This decision was given a fair degree of legal press coverage (The National Law Journal of 4-7-97, page A23, The New York Law Journal, of 3-21-97, page 1; and The ABA Journal of June 1997, page 16)(most articles stressing the fact that no recall was issued)(see “News Releases”).

Eve of Milady v. Impression Bridal, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, C.A. 96CV8893. Dr. McDaniel tried this copyright infringement/unfair competition case brought against defendant clients whose business is replicating designer bridal gowns. The case involved two separate injunction hearings, numerous evidentiary and discovery hearings, proceedings before a Special Master as well as before a Magistrate Judge, and the Court itself. A settlement was negotiated on behalf of the client that: (1) secured a requirement that plaintiff designer must place all future allegations of infringement before a special master; (2) avoided all necessity of recall of product; (3) settled for an amount of substantially less than exposure; (4) secured indemnification for liability by insurance company of entire amount; and, (5) secured payment of almost all attorneys fees expended by client from insurance company.

Impression Bridal, Inc. v. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, C.A. H 97-528. Settled strongly in favor of client.

Emme Bridal, Inc. v. Milady Bridals, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, C.A. H 97-1845. Steve McDaniel lead attorney.

Eve of Milady v. Emme Bridal, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, C.A. 97-CIV-6760.

Emme Bridal, Inc. v. The Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, C.A. H 97-3204.

Amalia Carrara v. Emme Bridal, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, C.A. 98-CV-2271.

Eve of Milady v. Moonlight Design, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, C.A. 98-CV-1549.

American West Insurance Co. v. Moonlight Design, Inc., United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 98 Civ 5206.

Cabot & Co. Jewelry, Inc v. Cheng’s Import, Inc. and Charles Cheng, Civil Action No. H-99-2704, United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. Dr. McDaniel represented Charles Cheng in this alleged copyright infringement, deceptive trade practices, and unfair competition lawsuit.

M. Cohen & Son, Inc. d/b/a The Iron Shop v. Stairways, Inc., United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, C.A. 96-8540. On behalf of Stairways, Inc., accused of copyright infringement and unfair competition in relation to advertisements of wrought iron spiral staircases, Dr. McDaniel (lead counsel) successfully defended against a preliminary injunction. As a result of their ability to defeat the preliminary injunction sought by The Iron Shop, Stairways was able to have the case dismissed for a minimal settlement amount (for which amount it was indemnified by its insurance carrier).

Stairways, Inc. v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Company, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, C.A. H 97-527. Dr. McDaniel successfully brought this declaratory judgment action on behalf of Stairways against Michigan Mutual. Michigan Mutual had refused to honor its contractual obligations to provide a defense and to indemnify Stairways under a Texas General Commercial Liability Policy containing an advertising injury clause. Stairways had been accused of copyright infringement in a separate action. As a result of the suit, Michigan Mutual agreed to pay for the defense of Stairways in the underlying matter and to indemnify Stairways for damages.

BACK TO TOP



Copyright © 2001 McDaniel & Associates, P.C.

The materials on this Web site are made available by McDaniel & Associates, P.C. solely for informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. The transmission and receipt of information contained on the Web site do not form, create or constitute an attorney-client relationship. Persons receiving the information on this Web site should not take any action upon the information therein without seeking professional legal counsel. The materials on this Web site may not reflect the most current legal developments, cases, verdicts or settlements, nor should these materials be construed as an indication of future legal outcomes or results. If any of these materials are deemed inconsistent with any rules governing attorney communications in a particular jurisdiction, and the materials result in a client contact in such jurisdiction, McDaniel & Associates, P.C. may be prohibited from representation of the alleged client contact. Some links within the McDaniel & Associates, P.C. Web site lead to other sites. The McDaniel & Associates, P.C. Web site does not incorporate any materials appearing in these linked sites by reference, nor does McDaniel & Associates, P.C. necessarily sponsor, endorse or otherwise approve of such linked materials. Attorneys listed in this Web site are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization unless otherwise indicated. No attorney listed in this Web site is certified as an "expert" or "specialist" pursuant to any authority governing the practice of law in the state of New York.