Overview
Our legal services are used widely in the Automotive, Transportation & Powersports industries. More than just the legal know how, we have the requisite technical and business backgrounds. Many of our attorneys have technical degrees in mechanical engineering and related fields, and many have also worked in these industries. Further, our attorneys are active members of relevant trade groups, such as the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and other industry associations. By staying up to date with emerging technologies and trends, we develop winning strategies based on a comprehensive legal and business perspective.
Our experience and capability are proven time and time again. We have secured broad protection of rights for these clients. We have successfully fought to vindicate their rights in court and at patent offices around the world. And we have victoriously defended many clients against attacks on their technology and business.
This is why clients come to Knobbe and stay with Knobbe. Some of our representations in this field span decades.
Representative Experience
AMP Research
We secured global patent portfolio protection for AMP Research, including assets for the BED X-TENDER and for retractable step technology. We also successfully negotiated a license agreement with a major tier one supplier. And we have successfully enforced their IP. The BED X-TENDER patents were asserted in patent infringement litigation, resulting in summary judgment of infringement against a competitor and securing a permanent injunction with a final judgment awarding damages and attorneys’ fees. We likewise asserted the retractable running board patents in Federal District Court litigation, resulting in AMP’s competitor agreeing to entry of a permanent injunction against it.
In the Matter of Certain Personal Watercraft and Components
Knobbe represented a major player in the watercraft industry in an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation against a competitor, ultimately reaching a settlement.
AutoAlert, Inc.
We represented AutoAlert in defeating five petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) filed by a competitor challenging the validity of AutoAlert’s patents related to lead generation for automotive dealerships. Knobbe Martens convinced the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to uphold the validity of all five patents — amounting to one quarter of all IPR petition denials that year. The competitor was subsequently unsuccessful in its appeals to the District Court and in a petition for writ of mandamus at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Automobile Club of Southern California v. The Auto Club
We successfully represented the Automobile Club of Southern California in asserting an unfair competition claim. We obtained summary judgment that the defendants were unfairly competing, and the court enjoined the defendants from further operations in California. We also successfully defended against the defendant’s motion for summary judgment that the trademark AUTO CLUB was generic. The court found that we introduced sufficient evidence that consumers viewed the mark as a brand and that the defendant’s use of the name “The Auto Club” was causing consumer confusion.
Bassani Manufacturing v. Monty Allen Campbell
We successfully opposed a trademark application for the mark X-PIPE for exhaust products on the ground that the mark was generic. The success was upheld on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Ferrari S.p.A.
We represented Ferrari against a counterfeit car manufacturer in patent, trademark and trade dress infringement cases. We obtained a contempt judgment, a permanent injunction, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for Ferrari.
Koni B.V. v. Tenneco Inc., et al.
Represented plaintiff Koni B.V. asserting claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment in the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) relating to frequency selective damping technology for automotive shock absorbers.
Kruse Technology Partnership v. Caterpillar
We successfully represented the plaintiff in patent litigation over diesel engine combustion technology, defeated Caterpillar’s summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, and negotiated a settlement before trial.
Magnetar Technologies Corp.
The largest amusement park ride manufacturer in the world repeatedly enforced its patents on magnetic braking systems without challenge – until it sued Magnetar, a start-up aggressively defended by Knobbe Martens. The Federal Circuit ruled in Magnetar’s favor, summarily affirming a judgment of unclean hands. We ascertained that the plaintiff forged a recorded patent assignment, which lead to a finding of unclean hands and an award of attorneys’ fees.
Maret v. Works Connection, Inc., et al.
We resolved an action in favor of Works Connection relating to infringement of a pin-style “hole shot” device for motorcycle racing. The defendant was ordered to cease sales of EZ Holeshot pin-style devices.
STAR EnviroTech, Inc. v. Redline Detection Inc.
We successfully defended STAR’s patent against an inter partes review (“IPR”) filed by competitor Redline Detection. STAR designs and develops tools for testing vehicle evaporative emission control systems. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initially determined that Redline had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving at least one of STAR’s patent claims unpatentable. But as a result of persuasive evidence and arguments, Knobbe Martens successfully defended STAR’s patent, making its client STAR one of only a small percentage of patent holders to survive an IPR with all claims intact. In a 33-page precedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision.
Superformance International, Inc.
We obtained summary judgment against a competitor’s claims of trade dress rights in the shape of Cobra vehicles, which resulted in the court dismissing a trade dress claim, a dilution claim, and a counterfeiting claim. In addition, the court denied the competitor’s motions regarding trademark infringement.