Litigation

With a team of ten attorneys, Young Basile provides aggressive yet cost-effective services for intellectual property and technology–related litigation. Over the past 30 years, we have handled hundreds of contested matters throughout the country, including over 60 trials in federal and state courts. Young Basile attorneys have also handled numerous matters before the International Trade Commission and the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit. Our no-nonsense, problem-solving approach to litigation yields good results for clients without extravagant expenditures of resources.

While no law firm can deliver a victory in every case, we achieved favorable results in the substantial majority of matters that we handled, frequently prevailing where the opposing party is represented by a larger firm (typically at fees two to three times greater than ours).

We believe our success stems from tightly aligning our work to our client's interest of minimizing cost, expediting resolution and achieving a favorable but practical solution. We focus tenaciously on the core elements of the case that will lead to victory, avoiding expensive and time-consuming gamesmanship. When we have a matter that absolutely necessitates application of more resources, we work with our client to hand–pick the best possible co–counsel to provide that additional support. We also strive to keep clients continuously informed as to costs, strategies and risks.

We use technology aggressively where it will reduce costs or improve results. For example, we have deployed Summation software to catalogue our discovery and Trial Director software to manage our trial needs. These innovative software applications yield cost-savings to the client during all phases of litigation.

Our attorneys have handled patent, trademark and copyright matters covering a range of industries and technologies, including automotive, robotics, software, food, consumer products, plastics, and software. The following are examples of matters that we have recently handled:

GM v. Keystone Automotive and Tong Yang Limited Co, 453 F.3d 351, 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1456, 2006 Fed.App.-0221P, C.A. 6 (Mich), June 3, 2006 (No. 05-1712). We represent Keystone Automotive, a distributor of aftermarket replacement parts for automobiles. In 2003, General Motors sued Keystone for trademark infringement claiming violation of the "GMC" and Chevrolet "Bowtie" trademarks. Our team had GM's case dismissed on summary judgment. This dismissal was substantially affirmed on appeal.

Ford Motor Company v. Keystone Automotive. In 2005, Ford Motor brought an action against Keystone before the International Trade Commission alleging design patent infringement of an automotive grille. We immediately searched unconventional sources for prior art. In one afternoon, we found "spy photos" of Ford trucks in a car enthusiast magazine. These photographs invalidated the patent in suit because they were published more than one year before the underlying patent application had been filed. When confronted with this evidence, Ford dismissed its complaint.

Fanuc Robotics v. Behr Systems, Inc., 2007 WL 579811, (Not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter), Fed. Cir., February 07, 2007 (No. 2006-1319). In 2004, our client Behr was sued by a major competitor before the International Trade Commission. Given the scope of the case we collaborated with a larger firm that had the surge capacity to support us. The collaboration was highly effective, resulting in a victory for Behr after a six day hearing and hundreds of pages of briefing. The costs to our client were significantly less than those incurred by its competitor, in large part because we were able to manage the expenditure of resources by co–counsel with the same objectivity as would be applied by in–house lawyers.