Lear Corporation v. NHK Seating of America Inc. (Settlement – E.D. Michigan): Only days into a federal jury trial, Lear Corp., represented by Brooks Kushman, and NHK Seating, informed a Michigan federal judge that the companies had reached a settlement in the patent infringement case involving headrest patents. Lear sued NHK Seating in 2013 saying the company infringed multiple patents for technology they used in their vehicle headrests. The case has been settled in its entirety.

Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. HoMedics, Inc. (Summary Judgment – W.D. Wisconsin): Sunbeam alleged Homedics was infringing a Sunbeam patent relating to bathroom scales.  As lead counsel for HoMedics, John successfully requested summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Homedics. The decision was affirmed after Sunbeam appealed to the Federal Circuit. Case No. 08-cv-376

Bravo Sports, Inc. v. North Pole (US) LLC. et al. (Summary Judgment – C.D. California): Bravo alleged NorthPole was infringing a Bravo patent relating to collapsible canopies. As lead counsel for NorthPole, John moved and argued for summary judgment of non-infringement and the case was ultimately dismissed. Case No. 8-05-cv-00418

Syncorp v. Lear Corporation (American Arbitration Association): Syncorp alleged Lear misappropriated trade secrets and breached a supply agreement relating to blow molded cargo covers and sought over $40 million in damages. Lear, represented by John, counterclaimed for breach of contract. The arbitration panel found for Lear. American Abritration No. 54-181-00553-97

Lear Corporation v. Bertrand Faure Technical Center, Inc. (Settlement – E.D. Michigan): Lear sued Bertrand Faure for infringement of a patent directed to self-aligning head rest technology. The trial court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Bertrand Faure. Lear, represented by John, appealed to the Federal Circuit and obtained a reversal. The case subsequently settled. Case No. 2-00-cv-72895

Expeditors International v. Vastera, Inc. (Jury Trial – E.D. Michigan): In a case watched closely by the customs industry (See Customs Brokerage Industry Narrowly Escapes Restructuring, Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter, October 4, 2004), Expeditors alleged Vastera had misappropriated over 325 trade secrets relating to the customs brokerage industry and sought $150 million in damages. John represented Vastera. The jury found for Vastera and the Court ordered Expeditors to pay over $400 thousand in fees to Vastera. Case No. 2 -01-cv-71000

Wiand v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (3M) (Settlement – E.D. Michigan): John represented Wiand in suing 3M for infringement of a patent relating to abrasive pads. After establishing liability and damages through aggressive discovery, the matter was resolved on terms that are confidential. Case No. 99-72870

TracTec, Ltd. v. Lear Corporation (6th Cir. Michigan): TracTec alleged that Lear had misappropriated trade secrets and breached a confidentiality agreement relating to racing car seat technology. John represented Lear. After aggressively litigating the case over several months, TracTec agreed to a voluntary dismissal.

Bombardier, Inc. v. Venture Industries Corp. (Settlement – E.D. Michigan): Bombardier sued Venture, alleging claim and delivery for certain mold tooling. Venture, represented by John, countersued, asserting misappropriation of trade secrets relating to the molding of snowmobile components in thermoplastic olefin (TPO), breach of confidentiality agreements, various liens, unjust enrichment and fraud. Bombardier eventually settled and paid damages sought by Venture. Case No. 2-99-cv-70072

Smith v. Johnson Propeller Co., Inc. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Smith alleged infringement of a patent relating to boat propeller blades. In representing Johnson Propeller, John successfully moved and argued for summary judgment based on patent invalidity. John was also successful in having that decision affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Accurate Detailing v. Haven Busch Co. (17th Cir. Michigan): John represented Accurate Detailing in a bench trial seeking damages from Haven Busch for construction extras. The claims were based on breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Judge found for Accurate Detailing and awarded all damages requested.