Overview
For nearly 20 years, Nicholas Zovko has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in a wide range of intellectual property disputes. Clients value Mr. Zovko’s ability to combine business acumen with a thorough knowledge of their technology to deliver outstanding results.
Mr. Zovko’s clients include large publicly traded entities as well as small and mid-size private companies located throughout the United States and abroad, including Europe, Asia, and Canada. He focuses primarily on representing companies in the medical devices and procedures, transportation equipment and vehicles, aerospace and space technology, and consumer products and services spaces.
Mr. Zovko has successfully litigated cases involving utility patents, design patents, trademarks, trade dress, trade secrets, unfair competition claims, and false advertising claims. He is a registered patent attorney and has experience before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office representing clients in IPR proceedings and prosecuting patents. He is a commentator on patent litigation matters, including authoring the chapter on “Pretrial Proceedings” in the Practicing Law Institute’s comprehensive book on Patent Litigation.
Mr. Zovko enjoys giving back to the community through pro bono work, and served as Chair of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee from 2018 to 2024. He has handled a number of pro bono matters, including federal court litigation, state court trials, and transactional matters. For nearly a decade, he has volunteered for the Public Law Center of Orange County.
Education
- University of the Pacific - McGeorge School of Law (J.D., 2005), with great distinction, Order of the Coif, Law Review, Anthony M. Kennedy Fellow
- University of Washington (UW) (B.S. Mechanical Engineering, 2001)
Representative Matters
Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp. et al. (District of Delaware)
Represented Masimo in case involving claims of design and utility patent infringement relating to health tracking watches. In 2024, obtained jury verdict of no patent infringement for all current accused products.
DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Solutions LLC (Southern District of California; Patent Trial & Appeal Board)
Represented Spectrum Solutions in case involving claims of patent infringement relating to saliva collection devices used for COVID-19 testing. In 2023, obtained summary judgment of no infringement of both asserted patents. In 2024, invalidated asserted claims of patent in IPR proceeding. See 671 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (S.D. Cal. 2023).
Spectrum Solutions LLC v. Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board)
Represented Spectrum Solutions in IPR proceedings involving patents asserted against saliva collection devices used for COVID-19 testing. In 2023 and 2024, obtained cancellation of more than 180 claims across five challenged patents.
Pavemetrics Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Tech, Inc. (Central District of California)
Represented Pavemetrics Systems as declaratory-judgment plaintiff in case involving claims of patent infringement relating to railway track assessment systems. In 2022, obtained jury verdict of no infringement and invalidity of asserted claims. Case later settled.
Evergreen Enterprises of Virginia, LLC v. WinCo Foods, LLC et al. (District of Delaware)
Represented WinCo Foods and Mode Imports in case involving claims of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and unfair competition relating to decorative doormats. In 2022, obtained early settlement avoiding substantial litigation costs.
Monster Energy Company et al. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Southern District of Florida)
Represented Monster Energy and Reign Beverage Company in case involving claims of trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition relating to Reign energy drinks. Obtained final judgment for clients on all claims after bench trial. See 472 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (S.D. Fla. 2023) and 553 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (S.D. Fla. 2024).
Breathe Technologies, Inc. v. New Aera, Inc. et al. (Northern District of California; Central District of California; Arbitration)
Represented Inogen Inc. and individual employee in case involving claims of patent infringement, breach of contract, and unfair competition relating to nasal pillows and masks used to deliver oxygen to patients. In 2021, obtained settlement after successfully moving to compel arbitration. See 2020 WL 4747896 (N.D. Cal. 2020).
Vincent Systems GmbH v. Össur Americas Inc. et al. (Central District of California)
Represented Össur in case involving claims of patent infringement relating to prosthetic hands and fingers. In 2020, obtained settlement during discovery phase of litigation.
SPS Technologies, LLC v. Briles Aerospace, Inc. et al. (Central District of California)
Represented Lisi Aerospace Canada and Lisi Aerospace North America in case involving claims of trade secret misappropriation relating to fasteners for the aerospace industry. Obtained dismissal by prevailing on motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. See 2020 WL 12740596 (C.D. Cal. 2020).
ITT Enidine Inc. v. General Aerospace, Inc. et al. (Western District of Washington)
Represented ITT Enidine in case involving claims of patent infringement relating to hydraulic devices used in overhead stowage bins on airplanes. Defeated motion to dismiss and obtained settlement shortly thereafter. See 2019 WL 4007331 (W.D. Wash. 2019).
Endobotics, Inc. v. Fortimedix Surgical B.V. et al. (Southern District of California)
Represented Fortimedix Surgical in case involving claims of patent infringement relating to minimally invasive surgical device for laparoscopy. In 2019, obtained settlement after moving to dismiss the complaint.
Koni B.V. v. Tenneco Inc. (Northern District of Illinois)
Represented Koni in case involving claims of trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract relating to valves for high-performance shock absorbers. Obtained settlement after defeating motion to dismiss and winning motion to compel relevant, important documents. See 2017 WL 8200172 (N.D. Ill. 2017).
Separation Design Group IP Holdings, LLC v. Inogen, Inc. (Central District of California)
Represented Inogen in case involving claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract relating to portable oxygen concentrators. Obtained settlement after mediation and shortly before trial. See 2017 WL 11631539 (C.D. Cal. 2017).
Dane Technologies, Inc. v. Gatekeeper Systems, Inc. (District of Minnesota)
Represented Gatekeeper Systems in case involving patent infringement claims relating to motorized shopping cart collectors. After several years of litigation, obtained settlement after mediation and before trial. See 135 F. Supp. 3d 970 (D. Minn. 2015).
Otto Bock HealthCare LP v. Össur hf et al. (Central District of California; Federal Circuit; Patent Trial & Appeal Board).
Represented Össur in case involving claims of patent infringement and breach of contract relating to vacuum pump systems for artificial lower-limb prosthetics. Defeated plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, obtained affirmance from Federal Circuit, and obtained institution of IPR proceedings for asserted patent claims. The parties settled shortly thereafter. See 2013 WL 4828791, 109 U.S.P.Q.2d 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2013) and 557 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Össur hf et al. v. iWalk, Inc. (District of Massachusetts)
Represented Össur in case involving patent infringement claims relating to microprocessor‑controlled prosthetic foot and ankle systems. Obtained settlement after claim construction phase of lawsuit. See 2013 WL 4046709 (D. Mass. 2013).
WeCosign, Inc. v. IFG Holdings, Inc. et al. (Central District of California)
Represented WeCosign in case involving claims of trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and unfair competition relating to financial services. Obtained default judgment including treble damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees. See 845 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (more than 700 later cases cite this opinion).
Gary-Michael Dahl v. Swift Distribution, Inc. d/b/a Ultimate Support Systems, Inc. et al. (Central District of California)
Represented Ultimate Support Systems in case involving claims of patent infringement, trademark infringement, and trade secret misappropriation relating to collapsible carts for transporting music and video equipment. Defeated application for temporary restraining order and obtained summary judgment of both asserted patents. The parties settled shortly thereafter. See 757 F. Supp. 2d 976 (C.D. Cal. 2010) and 2010 WL 1458957 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
Sperian Respiratory Protection USA, LLC v. Draeger Safety, Inc. (Central District of California)
Represented Sperian in case involving claims of patent infringement relating to self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) for firefighters. Case settled after claim construction and discovery phase of lawsuit.
Cimcore Corp. and Romer, Inc. et al. v. Faro Technologies, Inc. (Southern District of California).
Represented Cimcore and Romer in case involving patent infringement claims relating to coordinate-measuring machines. Case settled after jury trial. See 2007 WL 935665 (S.D. Cal. 2007).
Affiliations
Federal Bar Association
Orange County Bar Association
State Bar of California – Intellectual Property Law Section
Public Law Center
News & Insights
Articles
“Exploring a Powerful Legal Tool in Trade Secret Clashes,” World Intellectual Property Review (March 2024) (co-author).
“Shifting Venue for Patent Infringement Lawsuits,” Orange County Business Journal, Intellectual Property Supplement (2017) (co-author).
“Three New Tools to Challenge Patents,” Orange County Business Journal, Intellectual Property Supplement (2013) (co-author).
“Anti-counterfeiting Strategies: What You Need to Know,” Orange County Lawyer (Aug. 2007) (co-author).
“Bringing Counterfeiters to Justice,” World Trademark Law Report (Oct. 11, 2006) (co-author).
“Pre-litigation Anti-counterfeiting Toolkit,” World Trademark Law Report (Sept. 27, 2006) (co-author).
“Nanotechnology and the Experimental Use Defense to Patent Infringement,” 37 McGeorge Law Review 129 (2006).
Speeches & Seminars
“U.S. Patent Litigation Procedures and Strategies,” Course for Dutch and European Patent Attorneys (2020).
“How Can Young Lawyers Prosper in Today’s Market,” Interview with Law Practice Today (2015).
“Who Defines the Law? USPTO Rulemaking Authority,” 8 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 410 (2010) (co-speaker).