Howard, Phillips & Andersen (“HPA”) specializes in intellectual property litigation, including trademark and patent infringement litigation, and complex commercial litigation. HPA has recovered approximately $100 million for its clients in the past ten years. Unlike lawyers at many intellectual property law firms who have great technical backgrounds but are not that experienced in the courtroom, lawyers at HPA are not afraid to climb the courthouse steps and go into the courtroom where they have significant trial experience.
HPA represents such clients as Ford, General Motors, Honda, Playboy, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Toyota, Volvo, and Hertz in trademark litigation and enforcement matters. In 2002, HPA was ranked second in American Lawyer’s Survey of the Fortune 50 (i.e., the world’s 50 largest corporations) in trademark litigation ahead of such national law firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, Fulbright & Jaworski, and Covington & Burling. HPA has also successfully prosecuted several patent infringement matters against the computer industry and has obtained significant recoveries against Gateway, IBM, Lenovo, and others.
HPA also has particular expertise in Internet-related trademark litigation. Gregory D. Phillips testified on two occasions on behalf of Porsche before the World Intellectual Property Organization regarding WIPO's Interim and Final Report on the International Domain Name Process. As a result of such testimony and a law review article that he wrote titled "Necessary Protections for Famous Trademark Holders on the Internet," 21 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 635 (1999), he was asked by Senator Orrin Hatch to help draft provisions of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), and to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the Act. Thomas R. Lee also helped draft key provisions of the ACPA, and has also written a law review article titled "In Rem Jurisdiction in Cyberspace," 75 Wash. L. Rev. 97 (2000). Thomas R. Lee has authored several other articles including his most recent article, “Trademarks, Consumer Psychology, and the Sophisticated Consumer,” 57 Emory Law Journal 575 (2008).
HPA has fought hard for and successfully established favorable trademark-protection precedent for trademark holders, including two opinions that were named “Trademark Opinions of the Year” by INTA, the International Trademark Association: Ford Motor Co. v. Lloyd Design Corp., 184 F.Supp.2d 665 (E.D.Mich. 2002) and Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 457 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2006). Other significant reported cases include:
Audi AG v. D’Amato, 469 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2006)
Audi AG. v. Izumi, 204 F.Supp.2d 1014 (E.D. Mich. 2002)
American Honda Motor v. Pro-Line Protoform, 325 F.Supp.2d 1081 (C.D.Cal. 2004)
Atlas Copco AB v. ATLASCOPCOIRAN.COM, 533 F.Supp.2d 610 (E.D.Va. 2008)
Ford Motor Co. v. Catalanotte, 342 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2003)
Ford Motor Co. v. Lapertosa, 126 F.Supp.2d 463 (E.D. Mich. 2001)
Ford Motor Co. v. Great Domains, Inc., 141 F.Supp.2d 763 (E.D.Mich. 2001)
Xoxide v. Ford Motor Co., 448 F.Supp.2d 1188 (E.D.Mich. 2006)
General Motors v. Autovation Technologies, 317 F.Supp.2d 756 (E.D.Mich. 2004)
General Motors v. Let’s Make A Deal, 223 F.Supp.2d 1183 (D.Nev. 2002)
General Motors v. Phat Cats, 504 F.Supp. 1278 (M.D.Fla. 2008)
General Motors v. Urban Gorilla, 500 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2007)
Playboy Enterprises v. Muller, 314 D.Supp.2d 1037 (D.Nev. 2004)
Porsche Cars North Am., Inc. v. Spencer, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1026 (E.D. 2000)
Porsche Cars North Am., Inc. v. Porsch.com, 51 F.Supp.2d 707 (E.D.Va. 1999); rev'd Porsche Cars North Am., Inc. v. Allporsche.com, 215 F.3d 1320 (4th Cir. 2000)
Liquid Glass Enters. v. Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, 8 F.Supp.2d 398 (D.N.J. 1998)
Porsche Cars North Am., Inc. v. Manny's Porshop, 972 F.Supp. 1128 (N.D.Ill. 1997)
Dr. Ing h.c.F. Porsche AG v. Universal Brass, Inc., 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1593 (W.D.Wa. 1995)
Au-Tomotive Gold v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 544 F.Supp.2d 933 (D.Ariz 2008)
Virtual Works Inc. v. Volkswagen of America., Inc., 238 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2001)
HPA believes that the goals of excellent legal work for a competitive fee are not mutually exclusive, but can be achieved by exceptional and efficient lawyers. HPA offers its clients the experience, capability, precision, and attention to detail of a large law firm, while preserving personalized attention, a collegial atmosphere, and a cost efficient approach to litigation. Our goal is to forge long-term relationships with selected clients. Accordingly, the lawyers at HPA make every effort to address any and all needs, concerns, or questions raised by our clients.