Paul Stewart

Partner

Orange County

949-760-0404

paul.stewart@knobbe.com

Download vCard

Overview

Experience

Recognition

Resources

Paul Stewart is a partner in our Orange County Office.

Mr. Stewart represents clients in all types of intellectual property disputes, including those involving patents, trademarks, trade secrets, unfair competition claims, and data privacy claims. Mr. Stewart's practice also includes the defense of class actions in these areas. He has represented clients in district courts throughout the country and before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Stewart's cases have involved a vast array of technologies and products, including medical devices, semiconductor processing, computer systems, computer software, and construction equipment. He has also represented many clients in non-technical disputes relating to trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights.

Mr. Stewart joined the firm in 1991 and became a partner in 1996.

Clerk Experience

Honorable James Browning, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1990-1991

Education

University of Virginia School of Law (J.D., 1990), Editorial board of the Virginia Law Review, Order of the Coif Honorary Society

Pomona College (B.A. Mathematics, 1987), Phi Beta Kappa Honorary Society, Dean's List each semester, magna cum laude

University of Virginia School of Law

Pomona College

State Bar of California

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

U.S. District Court - Central District of California

U.S. District Court - Northern District of California

U.S. District Court - Southern District of California

Automotive, Transportation & Power Sports

Construction & Home Improvement

Electronics & Semiconductors

Fashion & Beauty

Food & Beverage

Medical Devices & Procedures

Software & Information Technology

Sporting Goods & Recreation

Practice Areas

TTAB Proceedings

Data Privacy & Security

Opinions & Counseling

Appellate Litigation

Medical Device Litigation

Trade Secret & Employment Mobility Litigation

Trademark & Brand Protection Litigation

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Successfully represented American Airlines against a charge that its SabreVision computer reservation system infringed three patents.  Obtained rulings on summary judgment that SabreVision did not infringe any of the three patents.  Also obtained rulings on summary judgment that two of the plaintiff’s patents were invalid.  Obtained affirmance of all rulings on appeal.  District Court decisions:  Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534 (S.D. Cal. 1995), Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 500 (S.D. Cal. 1994), Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1637 (S.D. Cal. 1993), Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1246 (S.D. Cal. 1993).

Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Industries, Inc., 145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Represented the plaintiff, a manufacturer of a revolutionary saw for cutting concrete, at both the trial and appellate levels.  Obtained summary judgment of patent infringement and patent validity on behalf of plaintiff at the district court, and obtained affirmance of this ruling on appeal.

Rhodes v. Rhodes Music Corporation, 35 Fed. Appx. 686 (9th Cir. 2002) (non-precedential).

Successfully represented businesses charged with infringing trademark rights and publicity rights at the appellate level and obtained a reversal of summary judgment of infringement and reversal of a judgment of more than $1,000,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees.

American Medical Association v. Practice Management Information Corporation, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997).

Successfully represented defendant, a distributor of medical books, by obtaining a judgment that the copyright owner had engaged in copyright misuse, rendering the copyright unenforceable until the misuse could be purged.  This decision marked the first time the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognized the existence of the defense of copyright misuse.

Cabinet Vision, Inc. v. Cabnetware, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 2030 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (non-precedential).

Represented manufacturer and distributor of custom cabinetry software against a charge of patent infringement and obtained a judgment reversing the jury verdict and invalidating the patent.  These rulings were affirmed on appeal.

Kyjen, Inc. v. Vo-Toys, Inc., 223 F.Supp.2d 1065 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

Represented plaintiff, a manufacturer and distributor of stuffed animal toys, and obtained summary judgment of copyright infringement and validity, and trademark infringement and validity.

Montano v. Eagle III Diversified, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10840 & 10837 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

Successfully defended manufacturer of after-market automotive accessory parts against a charge that it had engaged in unfair competition through the alleged copying of an unpatented automotive accessory part.  Defeated an application for a temporary restraining order and a motion for preliminary injunction.  The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice following denial of the preliminary injunction. 

B&S Plastics, Inc. v. Hydro Air Industries, Inc., 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1660 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

Defended the manufacturer of nozzles for outdoor spas against a charge that its nozzles infringed the patent of a competitor.  Obtained summary judgment invalidating the patent. 

SuperShuttle International, Inc. v. Schafer-Schonewill & Associates, Inc., 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1762 (D. Colo. 1995), 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1766 (D. Colo. 1995).

Represented, SuperShuttle, a well-known provider of airport van services against a competitor that began using the trademark “SuperShuttle Express.”  Obtained a preliminary injunction against the use of the SuperShuttle Express trademark.  When the defendant switched to the trademark “Super Express Shuttle,” we obtained a judgment of contempt. 

M’Otto Enterprises, Inc. v. Redsand, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1993).

Represented a professional volleyball player and clothing manufacturer against competing clothing manufacturer.  Our client marketed his clothing under a trademark which was a stylized version of his own face, emphasizing his distinctive hairstyle.  The competitor marketed its clothing using a cartoon logo having a similar hairstyle.  Obtained a judgment after trial that the competitor had infringed our client’s trademark rights, and enjoining further use of the competitor’s logo.

Sulzer Dental, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare USA, Inc. (Arbitration 2004).

Represented a dental implant manufacturer accused of patent infringement in binding arbitration.  Obtained a final judgment of noninfringement and an award of attorneys’ fees of more than $2 million for the successful defense.  These rulings were confirmed in their entirety by the District Court.

Awards & Honors

Mr. Stewart has received multiple awards and has been honored for his legal accomplishments:

Named a "Top Author" in JD Supra's 2022-2019 "Readers' Choice Awards" for Patents
Selected for inclusion in the "Southern California Super Lawyers" list for his work in intellectual property litigation by Super Lawyers magazine (2009-2021)
Recognized as an "Intellectual Property Trailblazer" in the National Law Journal's (NLJ) 2016 list of featured attorneys who impacted patent law
Named as one of Southern California's "Rising Stars" in intellectual property law in a survey of his peers, published in Los Angeles Magazine and Super Lawyers magazine, in 2004, 2005 and 2006

Articles

Author, "Fed. Circ. In Oct.: Patent Venue's Remote Work Questions," Law360 (October 2022).

Ben Katzenellenbogen and Paul Stewart, "What USPTO's Disclosure Duties Notice Says And Doesn't Say," Law360 (September 2022).

Ben Katzenellenbogen and Paul Stewart, "The Federal Circuit in August: Considerations in Assignor Estoppel," Law360 (August 2022).

Michael Friedland and Paul Stewart, "The Federal Circuit in July: A 'Prior Art' Decision to Know," Law360 (July 2022).

Author, "The Federal Circuit in June: A Few Decisions to Know," Law360 (July 2022).

Joseph Re and Paul Stewart, "Manufacturers May Want to Lease -- Not Sell -- Their Patented Medical Devices," Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry (MD+DI) (June 2017).

Paul A. Stewart and Joan Y. Chan, “Saving or Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege During IP Due Diligence: Supporting or Criticizing Hewlett-Packard v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,” Association of Business Trial Lawyers Report, Vol. XI, No. 4, Winter 2009/2010.

Author, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog