It is best to avoid disputes, but if they cannot be avoided and a fight is at hand, then it is decidedly better to win than to lose. Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson strives to avoid unnecessary litigation but when it is necessary, Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson has the demonstrated ability to prosecute and defend its clients' interests with skill and efficiency.
Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson's litigation teams have a well deserved reputation for not being "outlawyered." At every stage of a lawsuit Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson's litigation teams are consistently industrious, creative and thoroughly prepared. We endeavor to seize the initiative in each new litigation matter and we work to retain the initiative throughout pretrial proceedings, settlement negotiations and trial. This policy effectively controls the course of the litigation and can procure meaningful settlement negotiations at an early stage.
Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson is highly experienced in all aspects of intellectual property litigation. Our lawyers are skilled in both the prosecution and defense of complex litigation procedures such as temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, product seizures, protective orders, expert witness testimony, product surveys and economic analyses. Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson maintains a strong working relationship with intellectual property litigation firms throughout the country and can quickly muster a battle-ready team of expert litigators wherever our clients' interests are a stake.
The firm's structure lends itself to being able to devote substantial professional and support resources to a case when they are needed. Lawyers and support staff who are knowledgeable of the subject matter of the litigation can gear up for trial quickly, effectively and efficiently.
Winning at trial does not depend solely on the merits of the case. Technique matters. The firm's successes are a function of the firm's excellent communication skills and clear understanding of the factors that influence the trier of fact, be it judge or jury. The firm regularly uses outside experts in economics, market studies, consumer perception and communications to tell the client's story. The proof of the effectiveness of the firm's trial teams is in their successes.
In a patent infringement action brought in the Central District of California, the Plaintiff contended that over 118 companies were infringing it's patents over the circuitry of liquid crystal display devices. This action was only one of 15 throughout the U.S., involving over 1000 defendants. Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson represented 18 small companies and defended vigorously. Ultimately a judgment of non-infringement was entered in favor or all 118 defendants in the action and the Plaintiff abandoned all of the remaining cases throughout the country. One of Plaintiff's patents had been invalidated, and plaintiff's claim were held to have been brought in violation of law resulting in sanctions against the Plaintiff exceeding $1.4 million. Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson's lead counsel repeatedly received high praise from the court for his contribution and effectiveness in the litigation. Refac v. Hitachi
A small California based mobile home foundation support manufacturer was sued for patent and trademark infringement by a larger competitor. Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson developed a defense strategy which included anti-trust claims and secured summary judgment on the patent claim. Plaintiff settled the case and plaintiff's insurance company paid $750,000 to Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson's client just before the case went to the jury. Sure Safe Manufacturing v. C&R Pier
On the eve of the Christmas selling season, a California based Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson client was sued for trademark and trade dress infringement in New York by a multi-national Fortune 500 plaintiff who sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction. If the TRO was granted, the client would have been ruined. With less than 18 hours to respond, Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson appeared at the hearing in New York, fully briefed, with evidence, including testimony of an expert witness. The TRO was denied. In the ten days that followed, Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson deposed Plaintiff's top executives and examined thousands of Plaintiff's documents in New York, defended the client's deposition and produced thousands of documents in California, gathered economic evidence and expert survey evidence in California, Illinois and Washington D.C.. Sheldon Mak Rose & Anderson put together an impressive brief in opposition to the preliminary injunction. Upon its receipt, Plaintiff settled. Estee Lauder v. Markwins
We invite you to call us when the outcome matters.
Last Updated April 02, 2007