Ralph J. Gabric

Ralph Gabric has more than 22 years of experience litigating patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, unfair competition and related antitrust matters. Mr. Gabric has substantial first and second chair trial experience in both bench and jury trials. His litigation experience includes Markman hearings, preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders, arbitrations and appeals.

Industries in which Mr. Gabric has represented clients include pharmaceuticals, medical devices, automotive, electronic trading, computer software and hardware, analytical instrumentation and chemical. He has lectured on the subject of patent litigation and patent licensing and written about trade dress protection and dispute resolution.

• The Best Lawyers in America, Intellectual Property Law, 2010, 2009
• Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business, Leading Illinois Intellectual Property Lawyers, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004
• Illinois Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006
• Leading Intellectual Property Lawyer, Leading Lawyers Network, Law Bulletin Publishing Company, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004
• DePaul Law Review, DePaul University School of Law

• ICOR International, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (S.D. Ind. 2010). Subject:  Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement and for False Marking.  Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents ICOR International, Inc.
• Abbott Laboratories, and Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida, Watson Pharma, Inc., and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. N.J. 2010).  Subject Patent Infringement. Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents the Watson defendants.
• Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (D. Md. 2001-Present).  Subject:  Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement, validity and enforceability.  Resolution:  Patents held unenforceable after an eight-day bench trial.  Reversed on appeal and remanded for trial on the issues of validity and infringement.  After a four-week jury trial in May-June 2009, patents held not infringed and invalid.  Case is currently on appeal before the Federal Circuit.  Mr. Gabric represented defendant R. J. Reynolds.
• Vehicle Occupant Sensing Systems, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2009).  Subject:  Patent Infringement.  Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents defendant American Honda.
• Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, IEE Sensing, Inc., IEE SA, and Elesys North America, Inc. (S.D. Mich. 2010).  Subject:  Patent Infringement.  Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents defendant Elesys North America, Inc.
• AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca UK Limited, IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (D. Del. 2008).  Subject:  Patent Infringement.  Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.
• Merck Sharp & Dohme Pharmaceuticals SRL v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (D. N.J. 2007).  Subject:  Patent Infringement.  Resolution:  Patent on compound held enforceable and not invalid.  Mr. Gabric represents the Teva defendants.
• Alticor Inc., Amway Corp. and Quixtar Inc. v. NCR Corp. (W.D. Mich. 2007). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled on favorable terms. Mr. Gabric represented Amway, Alticor and Quixtar.
• Pokorny v. Quixtar, et al. (N.D. Cal. 2006).  Subject: Class Action/RICO.  Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents defendants Quixtar, et al.
• Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Company, General Motors Corporation and Elesys North America, Inc. (D. Del. 2006).  Subject: Patent Infringement.  Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents defendants American Honda, GM and Elesys North America.  Resolution:  Case stayed pending reexamination of asserted patents.
• Bonutti IP, L.L.C. v. ArthroCare Corp. (S.D. Ill. 2005-2007). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Obtained multi-million dollar settlement on behalf of the plaintiff-patentee.
• Jacobs Chuck Mfg. Co. v. Shandong Weida Machinery Company and One World Technologies, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2005-2007). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled on favorable terms. Mr. Gabric represented both defendants.
• McArthur Photography Inc. v. Ficore (N.D. Ill. 2002-2004). Subject: Copyright Infringement. Issue: Whether Ficore made reprints of photographs without license. Resolution: Case settled on favorable terms before trial.
• Dionex Inc. v. Alltech Associates, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2002-2005). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Invalidity. Resolution: Case settled on favorable terms before trial. Mr. Gabric represented Alltech Associates.
• Nitro Distributing, et al. v. Alticor, et al. (W.D. Mo. 2002-Present). Subject: Antitrust. Issue: Whether Alticor conspired with others in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of Sherman Act. Resolution: Summary Judgment in favor of defendants; affirmed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Gabric represented the defendants.
• eSpeed, et al. v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, et al. (N.D. Tex. 1999-2001). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Case settled on favorable terms shortly before trial. Mr. Gabric represented the CME.
• Prototype Equipment Co. v. Fallas Automation, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. 2000). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Defendant threatened to introduce product at trade show that infringed our client’s patent. Resolution: Temporary Restraining Order granted resulting in favorable settlement for our client.
• Amway Corp. v. Procter & Gamble (W.D. Mich. 1998-2003). Subject: Tortious Interference. Issue: P&G is charged with publishing court pleadings that contain false and misleading information about Amway. Resolution: P&G protected by the Fair Reporting Privilege.
• Foresight, Inc. v. Platipus Anchors, Ltd. (D. Col. 1998-2000). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Court interprets patent claims as a matter of law in a manner favorable to our clients, the alleged infringers; summary judgment granted in favor of our clients.
• Yesmail.com v. Internet Marketing Group, Brett Enright and Mark Ellis (N.D. Ill. 2000). Subject: Computer abuse, spamming, tortious interference with business relationships. Issue: Whether defendants’ e-mail activities and efforts to disguise their identity violated plaintiff’s common law and statutory rights. Resolution: Consent Judgment entered in favor of plaintiff finding defendants’ efforts to conceal their identity and efforts to create the appearance that their e-mail messages originated from plaintiff constituted violations of federal and common law. Mr. Gabric represented Yesmail.com.
• Yesmail, Inc. v. Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC. (N.D. Ill. 2000). Subject: Tortious interference with contractual relationship, business disparagement, defamation arising from Internet-related activities. Issue: Whether identifying plaintiff as a “spammer” and blocking transmission of plaintiff’s e-mail messages violated plaintiff’s common law rights. Resolution: The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a temporary restraining order in our client’s favor preventing defendant from identifying plaintiff as a “spammer” and from interfering with plaintiff’s transmission of e-mail messages to third party internet service providers. Case subsequently settled on terms favorable to our client.
• Procter & Gamble v. Amway Corp. (S.D. Texas 1997-1999). Subject: Defamation, violations of the Lanham Act and RICO statutes, defamation, tortious interference with business relations, fraud and vicarious liability. Issue: The claims were based on statements made by Amway distributors about P&G, comparative advertising of Amway and P&G products, and Amway’s business activities. Resolution: Some of the claims were dismissed at the pleading stage and others were dismissed by summary judgment. The remaining claims were dismissed at the conclusion of a two-week jury trial. Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The district court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of Amway's petition for a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court.
• Procter & Gamble v. Randy Haugen and Amway Corporation (D. Utah 1995-1999). Subject: Lanham Act, defamation per se, tortious interference with business relations and vicarious liability. Issue: Whether Amway was vicariously liable for false statements made by Amway distributors about P&G. Resolution: All of P&G’s claims were dismissed at the pleading stage or by summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Amway was not vicariously liable and remanded two claims of direct liability which are pending in the district court.
• Holcomb Healthcare Services Corp. and Amway Corporation v. Nikken, Inc. (M.D. Tenn. 1999-2001). Subject: Patent and Unfair Competition. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: The Court denied the defendant's motions for summary judgment on the issue of infringement, validity and unfair competition. Case settled favorably for the client one month before jury trial.
• Dionex, Inc. v. Alltech Associates, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1998-2000). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Case settled favorably for our client after discovery.
• Out of Line Sports, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc. (D. Col. 1996-1998). Subject: Patent infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Case settled favorably for our client on the day of a scheduled Markman and summary judgment hearing.
• Alpine Lace Brands, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., Schreiber Foods, Inc., et al., No. 95-1131 (JWB) (D. N.J. 1996); aff’d, Nos. 96-1511, 97-1047 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22, 1998). Subject: Patent for low-fat cheese. Issue: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Court interprets patent claims as a matter of law in a manner favorable to our clients, the alleged infringers; summary judgment granted in favor of our clients; affirmed by the Federal Circuit after appeal.
• Glascraft, Inc. v. Graves Spray Supply, Inc., No. 95-662-CIV-T-25C (M.D. Fla. 1996). Subject: Patents for fiberglass resin/catalyst spray guns. Issue: Infringement and validity of patents owned by both parties. Resolution: Case settled favorably for our client.
• Apollo Inc. v. Global Village Inc. (N.D. Ill. 1995). Subject: Trademark Infringement. Issue: Validity, infringement and whether second-filed trademark action should proceed in lieu of first-filed declaratory judgment in California. Resolution: First-filed California declaratory judgment action dismissed and second-filed trademark action allowed to proceed. Case settled favorably for client after discovery.
• Marianna Imports v. Helene Curtis, Inc., 873 F. Supp. 308 (D. Neb. 1994).  Subject:  Patent for permanent hair-waving compound.  Issue:  Should the patent infringer’s second-filed, but first-served declaratory judgment action prevail over the patent owner’s first-filed, but second-served assertive action.  Resolution:  The patent infringer’s second-filed action is dismissed in favor of our client, the patent owner’s, first-filed assertive action; case later settles in favor of our client, Helene Curtis, by Marianna’s cessation of infringement and payment of damages.
• Helene Curtis, Inc. v. Ken Lange, Stylors, Inc., New Horizons Labs, Ltd. and J. Cannon, Inc., Nos. 3 C 7388-7391 (N.D. Ill. 1994).  Subject:  Patent for permanent hair-waving compound.  Issue:  Patent Infringement and Validity.  Resolution:  Four cases settled after discovery; defendants agree to cease patent infringement; and, our client, Helene Curtis, receives monetary damages.
• In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation, 817 F.Supp. 434 (D. Del. 1993); see also, 903 F. 2d 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  Subject:  Multi-district patent infringement action against our client, Roadmaster Corp. and Ajay Enterprises, Inc., and seven other defendants alleging infringement of a patent on a convertible rower.  Issue:  Whether a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) that a patent-in-suit was invalid, was binding in a later Federal District Court action involving the same patent.  Resolution:  The Delaware District Court entered a Summary Judgment for the defendants holding that the facts underlying the ITC invalidity decision were binding on the patentee under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and therefore, cannot be re-tried in Federal Court.
• Pogue v. Allied Products Corp., 14 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1329 (N.D. Ill. 1989).  Subject:  Patents and copyrights for computer software for machine control operator interfaces.  Issue:  Amendment of copyright infringement claim to include a patent infringement claim.  Resolution:  Motion granted; case later settled permitting our client, Allied, to continue to use its computer software.
• Tenman Systems, Inc. v. The Ziegelman Organization, No. 89 CH 43 (N.D. Ill. 1989). Subject:  Trade secrets for computer software.  Issue:  Whether an alleged contract can be enforced on the basis of supposed underlying trade secrets when the signatures on the contract were forged.  Resolution:  After a document examiner reports that the signatures on the alleged contracts are not genuine, the case settles permitting our client, Ziegelman, to continue to use the computer software.
   

• ICOR International, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (S.D. Ind. 2010). Subject:  Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement and for False Marking.  Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents ICOR International, Inc.
• Abbott Laboratories, and Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida, Watson Pharma, Inc., and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. N.J. 2010).  Subject Patent Infringement. Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents the Watson defendants.
• Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (D. Md. 2001-Present).  Subject:  Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement, validity and enforceability.  Resolution:  Patents held unenforceable after an eight-day bench trial.  Reversed on appeal and remanded for trial on the issues of validity and infringement.  After a four-week jury trial in May-June 2009, patents held not infringed and invalid.  Case is currently on appeal before the Federal Circuit.  Mr. Gabric represented defendant R. J. Reynolds.
• Vehicle Occupant Sensing Systems, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2009).  Subject:  Patent Infringement.  Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents defendant American Honda.
• Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, IEE Sensing, Inc., IEE SA, and Elesys North America, Inc. (S.D. Mich. 2010).  Subject:  Patent Infringement.  Resolution:  Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric represents defendant Elesys North America, Inc.

• "Trade Dress and Product Configuration Law," Chapter 2, Protecting Trade Dress, Second Edition, Aspen Law & Business (1999).

• "Ethical Issues in Patent Litigation," Practicing Law Institute's Patent Litigation 2010 Seminar, Chicago, Illinois, October 15, 2010
• "Clearance Opinions and Reliance on Advice of Counsel in the Aftermath of Echostar," Recent Developments in IP Litigation, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione Seminar, Chicago, Illinois, September 2006

• American Intellectual Property Law Association
• American Bar Association
• The Lawyers Club of Chicago
• Federal Circuit Bar Association
• Intellectual Property Owners Association

• Chambers USA Ranks Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione in the Top Tier of IP Law Firms in Illinois

• Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition
• Illinois Super Lawyers
• Chicago Lawyer
• Glen Ellyn Sun