Gary Clark

Gary A. Clark is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's Los Angeles office. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Clark was a founding member of the intellectual property firm of Pretty, Schroeder, Brueggemann & Clark.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Clark has undergraduate and graduate degrees in electrical engineering, and is a registered Patent Attorney. He has broad-based experience in representing companies in a wide range of industries and technologies. Mr. Clark has specialized throughout his career in the litigation of intellectual property disputes, with emphasis on patent, trade dress and trade secret matters. He has extensive experience as lead trial counsel in the federal courts, and in contested proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission, the American Arbitration Association, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Clark is also active in client counseling and in supervising the preparation and prosecution of patent and trademark applications. Mr. Clark has also recently been named one of the Best Lawyers in America.

Education

• J.D., University of California, Los Angeles, 1975
• M.S. Stanford University, 1971
• B.S.E. California State University, Long Beach, 1970, summa cum laude

Admissions

• California
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Federal Circuits
• California federal district courts, and various other districts

• Represented plaintiff in infringement case on patent for system for electronic weave correction used in film-to-video transfers during post production. Obtained jury verdict of validity and infringement
• Represented major lighting manufacturer as defendant in infringement case on patent for lighting control system. In bench trial obtained judgment that the patent was invalid and unenforceable for inequitable conduct and award of attorneys' fees
• Represented plaintiff in infringement action on patents relating to microwave feed assemblies. Obtained favorable jury verdict in part and resolution of other issues on post-trial motions, after which settlement was reached
• Represented major computer manufacturer in consolidated actions in Delaware in defense of infringement claim on power management patents. Action settled Defended consumer products company against claims of patent, trademark and trade dress infringement in actions in Los Angeles, Dallas and Chicago, and in ITC investigation in Washington, D.C. After full hearing, client was only respondent in ITC matter to prevail on all issues, and then successfully defended client in Dallas jury trial limited to the trade dress claims
• Represented video game company as accused infringer in infringement case on patent for image compositing system for self-service photo booths. Forced dismissal of action with prejudice within 3 months by uncovering evidence of patent invalidity. Follow-on action for antitrust violations and malicious prosecution resulted in multi-million dollar settlement for client
• Represented major studio and special effects developer in defense of infringement case on patent for video time code synchronized robot control apparatus. Obtained dismissal of case for lack of evidence of infringement
• Represented streaming media software company in complicated copyright, trade secret and contract cases. Obtained dismissal of one case, and other case settled
• Represented manufacturer of prosthetic appliances in series of patent disputes in federal court and in arbitration, prevailing in all but one arbitration and successfully defending contempt/preliminary injunction motion arising out of another arbitration
• Represented leading developer of entertainment lighting systems in defense of patent infringement action and as claimant in related arbitration for non-payment of royalties. Obtained multi-million dollar arbitration award, and infringement action settled
• Reported cases: Globe-Union, Inc. v. Tiegel Manufacturing Co., 228 U.S.P.Q. 58 (N.D. Cal. 1985); GTY Industries v. The Genlyte Group, Inc., 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 115 F.R.D. 308 (N.D. Cal. 1987), 116 F.R.D. 533 (N.D. Cal. 1987), 722 F. Supp. 592 (N.D. Cal. 1988), 692 F. Supp. 1118 (N.D. Cal. 1988), 882 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1989), 722 F. Supp. 595 (N.D. Cal. 1989), 746 F. Supp. 1413 (N.D. Cal. 1990), 909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990), 925 F.2d 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1991), 21 U.S.P.Q.2D 2037 (N.D. Cal. 1991); Interpart Corp. v. Imos Italia, 777 F.2d 678 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Mag Instrument, Inc. v. J. Baxter Brinkmann International Corp., 229 U.S.P.Q. 393 (C.D. Cal. 1985), 123 F.R.D. 543 (N.D. Tex. 1988); Mag Instrument, Inc. v. U.S. Intl. Trade Comm'n., 868 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Novitas, Inc. v. The Genlyte Group, Inc., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21084 (C.D. Cal. 1995), 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21089 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Nucleonics Development Co. v. Seymour, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Polaris Pool Systems, Inc. v. Letro Products, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1513 (C.D. Cal. 1995), 161 F.R.D. 422 (C.D. Cal. 1995), 886 F. Supp. 1513 (C.D. Cal. 1995), 914 F. Supp. 375 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Refac International, Ltd. v. Hitachi, Ltd., 921 F.2d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Tech-Wear, Inc. v. Acme Laundry Products, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Tiegel Manufacturing Co. v. Globe-Union, Inc., 224 U.S.P.Q. 1077 (D. Del. 1984)

Honors

• Fifty Leading IP Litigators in California, Daily Journal, 2008
• Master of the Bench, Los Angeles Intellectual Property Inn of Court
• Best Lawyers in America, 2008
• Southern California Super Lawyer, 2008

Articles

• He is a Contributing Author on the topic of defending against trade dress claims in Trade Dress Law, Aspen Law & Business (2d Ed. 1999).

Speeches

• Mr. Clark has lectured and written on the litigation of intellectual property disputes