Overview
Craig Summers has four decades of experience as an IP attorney and the praise of his peers as “an outstanding litigator.” His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and dispute resolution, including patents, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights, and unfair competition. With a strong and diverse technical background, he is able to explain complex technology in simple terms that are easily understood. This has allowed him to successfully represent clients through jury trials, bench trials, and appeals, and to achieve his clients’ goals before trial through motion practice, settlement and other means.
Over the years, Craig has litigated hundreds of intellectual property cases in district courts throughout the United States, the ITC, the PTAB, and the TTAB. He handles a wide range of technologies, from the highly complex to the simplest of inventions. Representative technologies include computer software and hardware, wireless communication, GPS navigation, e-commerce, aircraft equipment and components, medical devices, dental products, pharmaceutical products (and related Hatch-Waxman litigation), apparel, and athletic equipment.
In addition to his litigation practice, Craig has extensive experience advising clients regarding intellectual property infringement and validity issues, and he has been able to successfully resolve many disputes for his clients without litigation, either through informal pre-litigation negotiations or through formal ADR, such as mediation and arbitration. His diverse practice also includes representing several foreign corporations, which makes him especially qualified to navigate the unique issues facing those companies in U.S. litigation. He also has been retained as an expert witness in business disputes and litigation where patent law is an issue. Craig also serves as pro bono counsel for the Downtown Women’s Center in Los Angeles and has worked on pro bono litigation in connection with the Central District of California’s Pro Bono Civil Rights Panel, which provides opportunities to represent pro se litigants in prisoner civil rights cases in Federal District Court.
Education
- Loyola Law School (J.D., 1983), Dean's List, American Jurisprudence Award - Conflicts of Law
- University of Southern California (USC) (B.S. Mechanical Engineering, 1979)
Representative Matters
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Beckertime LLC (N.D. Tex.)
Represented Rolex in action to protect the famous Rolex® trademarks against counterfeiting and infringement by BeckerTime, an online retailer of “customized” Rolex watches. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in final judgment and permanent injunction in favor of Rolex.
Aliign Activation Wear, LLC v. lululemon athletica Canada Inc. and lululemon USA Inc., (C.D. Cal. and 9th Cir.)
Successfully defended lululemon in trademark infringement suit filed in connection with lululemon’s ALIGN yoga product collection. Obtained summary judgment of no infringement, including no forward confusion, reverse confusion or initial interest confusion between the parties’ products, which avoided the plaintiff’s damages claims exceeding several hundred million dollars. Summary judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit.
In the Matter of Certain Child Carriers and Components Thereof (U.S. ITC Investigation 1154).
Obtained a significant trial defense victory for the firm’s longtime client Infantino in an ITC Investigation over alleged patent infringement. In the Investigation’s Initial Determination, the ITC Administrative Law Judge found that Infantino’s accused products did not infringe the asserted patent, that the patent was invalid as anticipated and obvious, and that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In response to that overwhelming victory for Infantino, the patent owner LILLEbaby waived its right to petition the Commission for review of that Determination, waived its right to appeal the Determination to the Federal Circuit, and voluntarily dismissed its parallel district court case against Infantino.
Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Boston Scientific Corp., (D. Del.).
Represented Edwards Lifesciences in action to enjoin infringement of patents related left atrial appendage closure devices. This case was part of a global litigation dispute between the parties and helped achieve a successful worldwide settlement of all disputes.
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Watch Empire LLC, et al., (C.D. Cal.).
Represented Rolex in action to protect the famous Rolex® trademarks against counterfeiting and infringement by Watch Empire, an online retailer of counterfeit Rolex watches. When the Defendants failed to provide sufficient discovery and engaged in other discovery misconduct, the litigation team pursued a series of motions to compel seeking monetary and evidentiary sanctions. The discovery motions culminated in the court striking the defendants’ answer as a sanction. Rolex was then able to secure a default judgment that included a broad permanent injunction, a $5,000,000 statutory damages award, and an award of attorneys’ fees.
Winn Incorporated v. Halo Fishing LLC, (C.D. Cal.).
Represented Winn in action to protect the famous Winn® and Dri∙Tac® brands in connection with grips for fishing reels.
Dominion Dealer Solutions LLP v. AutoAlert, Inc. (PTAB and Fed. Cir.).
Represented AutoAlert, Inc. in defeating five petitions for inter partes review filed by a competitor challenging the validity of AutoAlert’s patents related to lead generation and data mining for automotive dealerships. The five denials represent a rare feat, considering that only about 12% of the 203 IPR petitions decided by the PTAB during 2013 were denied.
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Melrose Jewelers, (C.D. Cal.).
Represented Rolex in action to enjoin trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, unfair competition and cybersquatting by Melrose, an online retailer of counterfeit Rolex watches. After conducting discovery and filing a motion for summary judgment of infringement, the case settled with Melrose entering into a consent judgment, which included a permanent injunction and award of $8.5 million to Rolex.
Rohr, Inc. dba Goodrich Aerostructures v. Sheets Manufacturing, Inc. (Cal. Superior Court).
Represented Goodrich in case for breach of contract and specific performance to obtain an audit of an aircraft parts vendor suspected of misappropriating Goodrich’s trade secrets related to aircraft nacelle manufacturing designs. The case settled favorably for Goodrich before trial.
Toshiba Corporation v. Wistron Corporation, Investigation No. (U.S. ITC).
Represented Toshiba in ITC investigation (and a parallel district court action) involving patents on computer hardware and software features. Just before trial, the case settled with Wistron paying for a license under Toshiba’s patents.
Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc., et al., (E.D. Tex.).
Obtained $3.5 million jury verdict (later enhanced to $10 million) on behalf of San Diego-based Golden Hour Data Systems in patent case involving computerized integrated data management services for the emergency medical services industry. The jury found all claims valid and willfully infringed.
Duke University and Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. v. Elan Corp., Eisai Co., Ltd., et al., (M.D.N.C.).
Represented plaintiffs Duke and Orexigen in lawsuit to establish rights in patent applications involving pharmaceutical compositions for the treatment of obesity. The case settled, with Duke and Orexigen securing rights that enabled Orexigen to launch a successful IPO to continue development of the technology, and to eventually launch the highly successful obesity treatment drug, Contrave®.
Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. Bombardier Inc., (U.S. ITC).
Represented patent owner Yamaha in ITC investigation involving personal watercraft. Case settled after a four-week trial, just days before the ITC was to issue its initial determination.
Vitalcom, Inc. v. Telemetry For Medicine, Inc., (Cal. Superior Ct.).
Represented plaintiff Vitalcom in trade secret misappropriation case. Obtained final judgment and injunctive relief.
Yamaha Corporation of America v. Ryan, (C.D. Cal.).
Obtained preliminary injunction for plaintiff Yamaha in trademark case involving digital music technology.
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc., (N.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.).
Represented patent owner Bausch & Lomb and obtained reversal of invalidity ruling on patent for contact lenses.
Boston Scientific v. Edwards Lifesciences, (C.D. Cal.).
Defended Edwards Lifesciences in patent case involving eight patents asserted against delivery systems and crimpers used for implanting Edwards’ transcatheter heart valves. After filing IPR petitions against the patents, the Court stayed the case pending the final disposition of all IPRs, and the parties ultimately reached a settlement of their global dispute.
Reel Grip, Ltd. V. Winn Incorporated, (N.D. Ohio).
Defended Winn, a famous manufacture of sports grips, in action alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition based on the use of the term “Reel Grip” to describe Winn’s grips for fishing reels. After filing an answer and counterclaim detailing the generic and descriptive nature of the plaintiff’s alleged trademark, the case was promptly settled.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. TCL Corp., et al., (D. Del.).
Defended TCL and several of its related entities against allegations that TCL infringed patents based on sales of mobile telecommunication products. After TCL filed motions to dismiss based on Section 101 patent ineligible subject matter, the case quickly settled.
Aptails Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., (D. Del. and Fed. Cir.).
Defended Apotex in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride for treating musculoskeletal pain. To streamline and seek early resolution of the case, Apotex limited its defense to the issue of whether its product had a certain claim limitation. At trial, the District Court found infringement based on a claim construction that closely mirrored Aptails’ proposed construction. On appeal, the Federal Circuit adopted Apotex’s construction, vacated the infringement finding, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
IPA Technologies, Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. and TCT Mobile, (D. Del.).
Represented TCL Communication and TCT Mobile in patent case involving speech based navigation of electronic data sources. After filing, motions to dismiss based on lack of patent eligible subject matter and other motion practice, IPA dismissed the case.
Smart Irrigation Solutions, Inc. v. Hunter Industries, Incorporated, (C.D. Cal.).
Represented Hunter Industries in patent case involving irrigation controllers. After explaining Hunter’s noninfringement and invalidity defenses, the patent holder voluntarily dismissed the complaint with prejudice. While one of Hunter’s competitors settled by taking a license under the patent in suit, Hunter never had to answer the complaint.
MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., (D. Del.). v
Represented HTC in patent case involving personal alarm systems that use GPS to determine the location of a mobile phone during an emergency or other hazardous situation. After HTC filed several motions for summary judgment, the case settled on terms very favorable to HTC.
Walker Digital LLC v. Nordstrom, Inc. and Gap, Inc., (D. Del.).
Represented Nordstrom and Gap in patent case involving e-commerce sales of retail products over the internet. Early in the case, we engaged the plaintiff and explained why there was no infringement of the asserted patent. Shortly thereafter, and with minimal expense to our clients, the case was dismissed by stipulation.
Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., (E.D. Tex.).
Represented Alpine Electronics in patent case involving technology for connecting portable audio players, such as iPhones, to automobile sound systems. We were able to achieve a favorable settlement for Alpine and its customers early in the case with minimal expense. Other defendants that did not settle eventually lost at trial and were ordered to pay millions in damages.
Dahl v. Swift Distribution, Inc., dba Ultimate Support Systems, (C.D. Cal.).
Represented Ultimate Support Systems accused of patent, trademark and copyright infringement relating to collapsible carts for transporting music, sound and video equipment. After successfully defeating Dahl’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Ultimate moved for summary judgment of noninfringement of the patents in suit. The court granted the motion and the case settled immediately thereafter with Dahl dropping all of his claims against Ultimate.
Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. v. Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C., (C.D. Cal.).
Represented defendant Toshiba charged with infringement of a patent covering methods for censoring video programs. Prior to this lawsuit, a significant segment of the industry had taken a license under the plaintiff’s patent. But, after adopting Toshiba’s proposed claim construction, and prior to any substantial discovery, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, which prevented Toshiba from paying tens of millions of dollars in royalties sought by the plaintiff.
Bryan Callan v. Christian Audigier, Inc. et al., (C.D. Cal.).
Represented famous designer Christian Audigier in copyright infringement and breach of contract case involving tattoo artwork and designs for street wear. Obtained settlement of the case on a confidential basis just before trial.
Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd. v. Abbott Labs, (N.D. Ill.).
Represented declaratory judgment plaintiff Ranbaxy in patent infringement action involving patents relating to extended release clarithromycin (active ingredient in Abbott’s BIAXIN XL® product). In opposing Abbott’s motion for a preliminary injunction, succeeded in showing a likelihood that two patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Talbert Fuel Systems Patents Co. v. Unocal Corp., Union Oil Company of California, and Tosco Corp., (C.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.).
Represented defendant Tosco Corp. (later acquired by Conoco-Phillips) charged with infringement of patent on reformulated gasoline. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement, affirmed on appeal, which prevented Tosco from paying millions of dollars in royalties sought by the plaintiff.
Talbert Fuel Systems Patents Co. v. Unocal Corp., Union Oil Company of California, and Tosco Corp., (C.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.).
Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement, affirmed on appeal, for defendant Hunt-Wesson in patent case on microwave food packaging.
Brown v. adidas International, (S.D. Cal.).
Represented defendant adidas and obtained dismissal of action alleging patent infringement, copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation related to athletic shoe technology.
Rollerblade, Inc. v. Canstar Sports, Inc., (U.S. ITC).
Successfully represented Canstar, which makes the well-known line of Bauer ice hockey equipment, in ITC investigation involving patent on in-line skates. After locating invalidating prior art, Rollerblade dropped the case.
Refac Int’l. , Ltd. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., (C.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.).
Represented defendants Analog Devices, Inc. and NEC Electronics, Inc. in patent case involving LCD technology. Successfully obtained dismissal of case and award of sanctions against plaintiff for discovery violations and filing a frivolous action.
Recognition
Awards & Honors
Mr. Summers has received multiple awards for his legal accomplishments, including:
-
Recognized in Lexology Index: IP 2025 guide for outstanding Trademark work
-
Recognized in the “Best Lawyers 2025 Guide” for Intellectual Property Litigation in Best Lawyers in America (2024)
-
Named in 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers for the distinction honors outstanding lawyers based on peer nominations and independent research
- Selected by peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® for his work in Intellectual Property Litigation (2023 – 2024)
- Recognized for Trademarks in the 2023 “Who’s Who Legal: IP Guide” by Law Business Research
- Named a “World IP Leader” by World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) (2022 – 2024)
- Named a “Leading Litigator – IP Litigation” in the 2023-2024 edition of Lawdragon’s “500 Leading Litigators in America” guide
- Recognized by The Legal 500 “United States” for Patent Litigation (2021)
- Recognized in the World Trademark Review (WTR) 1000 as one of the “World’s Leading Trademark Professionals” (2018). His peers described him as an “outstanding litigator”.
- Recognized for Outstanding Leadership Contribution by the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law (2018)
- Selected multiple times by his peers as a “Southern California Super Lawyer” for his work in intellectual property litigation by Super Lawyers magazine.
- Recognized in 2013 by American Lawyer Media as a “Top Rated Lawyer in Intellectual Property Law”.
- Named as one of Southern California’s “Top Lawyers” for intellectual property litigation in an annual survey of his peers published by Los Angeles magazine.
- Voted by his peers as one of Orange County’s “Top 50 Attorneys” in intellectual property litigation in 2011.
- Recognized by Texas Lawyer magazine as one of the “Top Texas Verdicts of 2009” for his jury trial victory in Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc.
- Consistently recognized by Martindale-Hubbell as an AV Preeminent Rated lawyer.
Affilliations
American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law
Chair, IP West Conference, 2018-2019
Member of CLE Board, 2017-present
Member of Council, 1999-2003
Past Editor of the Section’s Newsletter
Past Chair, Litigation Division and numerous committees
American Bar Association, Section of Litigation
Federal Circuit Bar Association
Federal Bar Association, Orange County Chapter
Board of Directors, 2005-2008
American Intellectual Property Law Association
Patent Litigation Committee
Trademark Litigation Committee
ITC Trial Lawyers Association
Association of Business Trial Lawyers
Institute for Corporate Counsel, formed by the USC Gould School of Law and the Los Angeles County Bar Association
Member of the Advisory Board, 2014-2017
The Institute focuses on new developments in law, business and politics
Orange County Bar Association
Orange County Intellectual Property Law Association
News & Insights
Articles
“Remedies for Patent Infringement in the Federal Circuit – A Survey of the First Six Years,” published in the IDEA Journal of Law and Technology, Volume 29, 1989.
“Preliminary Injunctions in Trade Secret Cases,” published by the Practicing Law Institute, 1986.
“California Laws and Intellectual Property: Inventions, Copyrights and Unfair Competition,” published by the California Continuing Education of the Bar, 1985.
Chair, IP West, a 2-day CLE Conference by the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, in Newport Beach, California (2018), and in San Antonio, Texas (2019)
“What Keeps In House Counsel Up At Night,” moderated panel of three in house counsel at the third annual IP West Conference of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, in San Antonio, Texas (2019).
“Fireside Chat with In House Counsel and Law Enforcement,” moderated panel of two in house counsel and an Assistant United States Attorney on issues related to data privacy and security, including the GDPR and CCPA, in Irvine, California (February 2018) and San Diego, California (October 2018)
“A Conversation with the Bench,” moderated panel of three U.S. District Court Judges at the first annual IP West Conference of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, in Long Beach, California (2017).
“The Current State of Trade Secret Law and How the New Federal Statute Will Shape the Landscape,” presented in Hong Kong (2016)
“Strategies to U.S. Trademark and Trade Secret Litigations,” presented in Hsinchu and Taipei, Taiwan (September 2013).
“Recent Trends in Damages and Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases,” presented in Tokyo, Japan (2013).
“How to Get the Most Out of Your Relationship with Outside Litigation Counsel,” presented at IP Impact Seattle Seminar (2012).
“Recent Case Law Update,” covering topics including patentable subject matter, induced and joint infringement, and patent damages, presented at IP Impact Northern Virginia Seminar (2011).
“Forum Selection From The Plaintiff’s Perspective,” Spring Meeting of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2006, speech and paper.
“Preparing to Prevail: Preliminary Injunction Practice Pointers,” 20th Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, 2005, speech and paper.
“Using The International Trade Commission As An Alternative To Litigation,” Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association, Washington In The West Seminar, 2003, speech and paper.
“Attorney-Client Privilege Issues for In-House Counsel,” 18th Annual Intellectual Property Conference of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, 2003, speech and paper.
“Recent Developments in Patent Law,” Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, 1998, speech and paper.
“Confronting Attorney-Client Privilege Problems From the In-House Perspective,” Spring Meeting of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law 1998, speech and paper.
Speeches & Seminars
Chair, IP West, a 2-day CLE Conference by the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, in Newport Beach, California (2018)
“Fireside Chat with In House Counsel and Law Enforcement,” moderated panel of two in house counsel and an Assistant United States Attorney on issues related to data privacy and security, including the GDPR and CCPA, in Irvine, California (February 2018) and San Diego, California (October 2018)
“A Conversation with the Bench,” moderated panel of three U.S. District Court Judges at the first annual IP West Conference of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, in Long Beach, California (2017).
“The Current State of Trade Secret Law and How the New Federal Statute Will Shape the Landscape,” presented in Hong Kong (2016)
“Strategies to U.S. Trademark and Trade Secret Litigations,” presented in Hsinchu and Taipei, Taiwan (September 2013).
“Recent Trends in Damages and Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases,” presented in Tokyo, Japan (2013).
“How to Get the Most Out of Your Relationship with Outside Litigation Counsel,” presented at IP Impact Seattle Seminar (2012).
“Recent Case Law Update,” covering topics including patentable subject matter, induced and joint infringement, and patent damages, presented at IP Impact Northern Virginia Seminar (2011).
“Forum Selection From The Plaintiff’s Perspective,” Spring Meeting of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2006, speech and paper.
“Preparing to Prevail: Preliminary Injunction Practice Pointers,” 20th Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, 2005, speech and paper.
“Using The International Trade Commission As An Alternative To Litigation,” Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association, Washington In The West Seminar, 2003, speech and paper.
“Attorney-Client Privilege Issues for In-House Counsel,” 18th Annual Intellectual Property Conference of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, 2003, speech and paper.
“Recent Developments in Patent Law,” Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, 1998, speech and paper.
“Confronting Attorney-Client Privilege Problems From the In-House Perspective,” Spring Meeting of the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law 1998, speech and paper.