3Ralph J. GabricChicago(312) firstname.lastname@example.org@brinksgilson.comBrinks Gilson & Lionewww.brinksgilson.comwww.brinksgilson.comGabric.jpgIntellectual Property LawPatent LawIP Litigation,ANDA, Antitrust and RICO Litigation|
|Recommended by peers in:|| Extensive Experience in:|
|Intellectual Property Law|| IP Litigation,|
|Patent Law|| ANDA, Antitrust and RICO Litigation|
| Advisory Board Member|
| County: Cook|
| Litigator: Yes|
| Practice Description: |
Mr. Gabric has substantial first and second chair experience litigating patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, unfair competition and related antitrust matters. Mr. Gabric defended RJ Reynolds in an eight-day trial in connection with a billion dollar patent infringement claim against the company. Aside from his trial experience, Mr. Gabric has substantial Markman Hearing experience, which is where most patent cases are won and lost. Mr. Gabric has also successfully obtained preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders on behalf of firm clients.
Mr. Gabric has been recognized as one of the top IP lawyers in Illinois by Chamber U.S.A. for the past three years in a row. He has also been recognized as one of the top IP litigators in Illinois in several published surveys of his peers.
Industries in which Mr. Gabric has represented clients include medical devices, automotive, electronic trading, computer software and hardware, analytical instrumentation, chemical, and food. He has lectured on the subject of patent litigation and patent licensing and written about trade dress protection and dispute resolution.
Mr. Gabric believes strongly in giving back to the community. He serves on the Board of Directors and is Vice President of the Cook County Coordinated Advice and Referral Program for Legal Services ("CARPLS"). CARPLS is a not-for-profit organization devoted to providing free legal services to low income individuals in the Chicago metropolitan area. CARPLS handles approximately 25,000 legal matters annually.
Notable Cases and Results:
Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, and Elesys North America, Inc. (D. Del. 2006). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Ongoing.
Bonutti IP, L.L.C. v. ArthroCare Corp. (S.D. Ill. 2005-Present). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Trial scheduled, 2007.
Jacobs Chuck Mfg. Co. v. Shandong Weida Machinery Company and One World Technologies, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2005-Present). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Discovery ongoing.
McArthur Photography Inc. v. Ficore (N.D. Ill. 2002-2004). Subject: Copyright Infringement. Issue: Whether Ficore made reprints of photographs without license. Resolution: Case settled on favorable terms before trial.
Dionex Inc. v. Alltech Associates, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2002-2005). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Invalidity. Resolution: Case settled on favorable terms before trial.
Nitro Distributing et al. v. Alticor et al. (W.D. Mo. 2002-Present). Subject: Antitrust . Issue: Whether Alticor conspired with others in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of Sherman Act. Resolution: discovery ongoing.
eSpeed et al. v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, et al. (N.D. Tex. 1999-2001). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Case settled on favorable terms shortly before trial.
Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (D. Md. 2001-Present). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Trial held in 2005. Decision pending.
Prototype Equipment Co. v. Fallas Automation, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. 2000). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Defendant threatened to introduce product at trade show that infringed our client's patent. Resolution: Temporary Restraining Order Granted.
Amway Corp. v. Procter & Gamble (W.D. Mich. 1998-2003). Subject: Tortious Interference. Issue: P&G is charged with publishing court pleadings that contain false and misleading information about Amway. Resolution: P&G protected by the Fair Reporting Privilege.
Foresight, Inc. v. Platipus Anchors, Ltd. (D. Col. 1998-2000). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Court interprets patent claims as a matter of law in a manner favorable to our clients, the alleged infringers; summary judgment granted in favor of our clients.
Yesmail.com v. Internet Marketing Group, Brett Enright and Mark Ellis (N.D. Ill. 2000). Subject: Computer abuse, spamming, tortious interference with business relationships. Issue: Whether defendants' e-mail activities and efforts to disguise their identity violated plaintiff's common law and statutory rights. Resolution: Consent Judgment entered in favor of plaintiff finding defendants' efforts to conceal their identity and efforts to create the appearance that their email messages originated from plaintiff constituted violations of federal and common law.
Yesmail, Inc. v. Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC. (N.D. Ill. 2000). Subject: Tortious interference with contractual relationship, business disparagement, defamation arising from Internet-related activities. Issue: Whether identifying plaintiff as a "spammer" and blocking transmission of plaintiff's email messages violated plaintiff's common law rights. Resolution: The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a temporary restraining order in our client's favor preventing defendant from identifying plaintiff as a "spammer" and from interfering with plaintiff's transmission of email messages to third party internet service providers. Case subsequently settled on terms favorable to our client.
Procter & Gamble v. Amway Corp. (S.D. Texas 1997-1999). Subject: Defamation, violations of the Lanham Act and RICO statutes, defamation, tortious interference with business relations, fraud and vicarious liability. Issue: The claims were based on statements made by Amway distributors about P&G, comparative advertising of Amway and P&G products, and Amway's business activities. Resolution: Some of the claims were dismissed at the pleading stage, and others were dismissed by summary judgment. The remaining claims were dismissed at the conclusion of a two-week jury trial. Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The district court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of Amway's petition for a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court.
Procter & Gamble v. Randy Haugen and Amway Corporation (D. Utah 1995-1999). Subject: Lanham Act, defamation per se, tortious interference with business relations and vicarious liability. Issue: Whether Amway was vicariously liable for false statements made by Amway distributors about P&G. Resolution: All of P&G's claims were dismissed at the pleading stage or by summary judgment. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Amway was not vicariously liable and remanded two claims of direct liability which are pending in the district court.
Holcomb Healthcare Services Corp. and Amway Corporation v. Nikken, Inc. (M.D. Tenn. 1999-2001). Subject: Patent and Unfair Competition. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: The Court denied the defendant's motions for summary judgment on the issue of infringement, validity and unfair competition. Case settled favorably for the client one month before jury trial.
Dionex, Inc. v. Alltech Associates, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1998-2000). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Case settled favorably for our client after discovery.
Out of Line Sports, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc. (D. Col. 1996-1998). Subject: Patent infringement. Issue:Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Case settled favorably for our client on the day of a scheduled Markman and summary judgment hearing.
Alpine Lace Brands, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., Schreiber Foods, Inc. et al., No. 95-1131 (JWB) (D. N.J. 1996); affd, Nos. 96-1511, 97-1047 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22, 1998). Subject: Patent for low-fat cheese. Issue: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Court interprets patent claims as a matter of law in a manner favorable to our clients, the alleged infringers; summary judgment granted in favor of our clients; affirmed by the Federal Circuit after appeal.
Glascraft, Inc. v. Graves Spray Supply, Inc., No. 95-662-CIV-T-25C (M.D. Fla. 1996). Subject: Patents for fiberglass resin/catalyst spray guns. Issue: Infringement and Validity of patents owned by both parties. Resolution: Case settled favorably for our client.
Apollo Inc. v. Global Village Inc. (N.D. Ill. 1995). Subject: Trademark Infringement. Issue: Validity infringement and whether second filed trademark action should proceed in lieu of first filed declaratory judgment in California Resolution: First filed California declaratory judgment action dismissed and second filed trademark action allowed to proceed. Case settled favorably for client after discovery.
Marianna Imports v. Helene Curtis, Inc., 873 F. Supp. 308 (D. Neb. 1994). Subject: Patent for permanent hair-waving compound. Issue: Should the patent infringer's second-filed, but first served declaratory judgment action prevail over the patent owner's first-filed, but second served assertive action. Resolution: The patent infringer's second-filed action is dismissed in favor of our client, the patent owner's, first filed assertive action; case later settles in favor of our client, Helene Curtis, by Marianna's cessation of infringement and payment of damages.
Helene Curtis, Inc. v. Ken Lange, Stylors, Inc., New Horizons Labs, Ltd., and J. Cannon, Inc., Nos. 3 C 7388-7391 (N.D. Ill. 1994). Subject: Patent for permanent hair-waving compound. Issue: Patent infringement and validity. Resolution: Four cases settled after discovery; defendants agree to cease patent infringement; our client, Helene Curtis, receives monetary damages.
In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation, 817 F.Supp. 434 (D. Del. 1993); see also 903 F. 2d 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Subject: Multi-district patent infringement action against our client, Roadmaster Corp. and Ajay Enterprises, Inc., and seven other defendants alleging infringement of a patent on a convertible rower. Issue: Whether a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) that a patent in suit was invalid, was binding in a later Federal District Court action involving the same patent. Resolution: The Delaware District Court entered a Summary Judgment for the defendants holding that the facts underlying the ITC invalidity decision were binding on the patentee under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and therefore cannot be re-tried in Federal Court.
Pogue v. Allied Products Corp., 14 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1329 (N.D. Ill. 1989). Subject: Patents and copyrights for computer software for machine control operator interfaces. Issue: Amendment of copyright infringement claim to include a patent infringement claim. Resolution: Motion granted; case later settled permitting our client, Allied, to continue to use its computer software.
Tenman Systems, Inc. v. The Ziegelman Organization, No. 89 CH 43 (N.D. Ill. 1989). Subject: Trade secrets for computer software. Issue: Whether an alleged contract can be enforced on the basis of supposed underlying trade secrets when the signatures on the contract were forged. Resolution: After a document examiner reports that the signatures on the alleged contracts are not genuine, the case settles permitting our client, Ziegelman, to continue to use the computer software.
Illinois Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fed. Circuit
U.S. Dist. Court, N.D. Illinois, Member, Trial Bar
U.S. Dist. Court, W.D. Michigan
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
Date of Birth: 1962
Law School: DePaul University College of Law,J.D., 1988
Law School Honors/Involvement: DePaul Law Review, DePaul University
Undergraduate School: Boston College, B.S., chemistry, 1985
Brinks Gilson & Lione, Chicago, Illinois
Bar/Professional Association Involvement:
American Trial Lawyers Association
American Intellectual Property Law Association
American Bar Association
Chicago Inn of Court
The Lawyers Club of Chicago
Federal Circuit Bar Association
Intellectual Property Owners Association
Richard Linn American Inn of Court
Published Legal Writing:
"Trade Dress and Product Configuration Law," chapter 2, Protecting Trade Dress, Second Edition, Aspen Law & Business, 1999
"Clearance Opinions and Reliance on Advice of Counsel in the Aftermath of Echostar," Recent Developments in IP Litigation, Brinks Gilson & Lione Seminar, Chicago, Illinois, September 2006
Founded in 1917, Brinks Gilson & Lione provides intellectual property legal services worldwide. The firm is one of the largest intellectual property law firms in the country, with approximately 150 attorneys who specialize in IP litigation and all aspects of patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, Internet, unfair competition and related licensing matters.
Additional Office Locations:
Ann Arbor, Michigan; Indianapolis, Indiana; Arlington, Virginia, Salt Lake City, Utah
Map to Office:
Click here to view map