Brian S. Mudge
experiencerAndrews Kurth Kenyon
Network
Intellectual Property & Technology Powerhouse
{photo}

collaborative

Image of Puzzle Globe

focused

Contact Information

Washington, DC

1350 I Street, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
P: +1.202.662.3026
F: +1.202.662.2739
vCard

Inter Parties Review Blog

{photo}

Brian S. Mudge

Partner

Washington, DC Office
1350 I Street, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
P: +1.202.662.3026
F: +1.202.662.2739

Brian assists clients with a broad variety of intellectual property litigation, acquisition and counseling matters concerning patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. He has provided opinions regarding the scope and validity of patents and trademarks, has defended against claims of infringement of intellectual property rights, and has assisted clients in evaluating, acquiring and enforcing patent portfolios. He has prosecuted patent applications and has handled patent post-grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including inter partes review and reexamination cases. He has counseled clients in trademark selection, assisted clients in protecting works of authorship and assisted in the protection and licensing of proprietary technology.

Brian has experience in a wide variety of business and technology sectors, including internet and information technology, e-commerce, computer hardware and software, telecommunications, image and signal processing, Internet advertising, financial services, interactive entertainment, chemically-sensitive semiconductors and DNA sequencing hardware and software. His experience also includes entertainment law issues involving motion picture, music and publicity rights and new uses.

Prior to becoming a lawyer, Brian worked for RCA Corporation, where he was involved in research and development of image processing technology and commercial broadcast television products.

Representative Experience

  • Hewlett-Packard Co. in which he prepared two successful petitions for post-grant review of covered business method patents; these petitions formed the basis for a successful summary judgment motion in parallel district court litigation.
  • j2 Cloud Services and Advanced Messaging Technologies in which he successfully defended against two petitions for inter partes review of a patent.
  • AT&T in which he successfully defended client against trademark infringement claims by winning a ruling on summary judgment that “you have mail” is generic. America Online v. AT&T (E.D.V.A.).
  • D. E. Shaw & Co. in which he successfully obtained injunction against foreign hedge fund’s use of infringing fund name. D. E. Shaw & Co. v. Razor Investment Management (S.D.N.Y.).
  • Electronic Arts in which he defended against allegations of trade secret misappropriation. Delphine Software Int’l, SARL v. Electronic Arts (S.D.N.Y.). 
  • Home Shopping Network, Ingenious Designs and Joy Mangano in which he successfully defended against allegations of patent infringement. Pearson v. Mangano (W.D. Tenn.). 
  • Disney in which he successfully defended against summary judgment while obtaining a finding that the motion picture “Fantasia” was a work for hire and not a work of joint authorship. Philadelphia Orchestra Assn. v. Walt Disney Co. (E.D. Pa.). 
  • Sightsound in which he helped a patent owner successfully enforce its patents covering music downloading. Sightsound.com v. N2K (W.D. Pa.).
  • BNP Paribas and CooperNeff Advisors in which he helped overturn a TRO and defeat a preliminary injunction motion in a case involving copyrights and trade secrets. Zimmer v. CooperNeff Advisors (E.D. Pa.).

Insights

In The News

Events

Industries

Practices

Education

Admissions

Affiliations