When the patent has to do its job
A patent is a right to exclude, and it only means anything the day someone has to be excluded. For a Dallas business that day usually arrives in one of two forms: a competitor's product that looks a great deal like yours, or a letter from a competitor's lawyer saying yours looks like theirs. Either way the question is the same. What do the claims actually cover, and can that be proved to a federal judge?
Most firms that file patents refer that question elsewhere. A new firm takes a retainer and spends its first weeks learning an invention the filing attorney already understood. We do not split the work. The attorney who prosecuted the application before the USPTO is in the room when it is enforced.
The courts we practise in
Patent cases are exclusively federal. Dallas disputes are filed in the Northern District of Texas, and a large share of the nation's patent docket sits an hour east in the Eastern District. Brandon Leavitt, the firm's lead litigator, is admitted in all four Texas federal district courts, Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western, has argued before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears every patent appeal in the country, and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. He has also been admitted to litigate in federal courts in Arizona, Utah and California when a Texas client's dispute lands there.
The record
Pearson's Inc. v. Ackerman, Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00013-BP, Northern District of Texas. A large manufacturer of cattle chutes sued a small rancher for trade dress infringement and demanded millions. Brandon Leavitt took the case to a federal trial and proved the plaintiff's registered trade dress was invalid. The rancher owed nothing, and the plaintiff lost its own federal registration in the process.
KY Home and Garden, LLC v. AMI Ventures, Inc., 4:20-cv-3382, Southern District of Texas. On the enforcement side, he sued a company infringing his client's registered trademark and proved the infringement in federal court.
Verify Him, LLC v. Lanning, TTAB Opposition No. 91252600. He opposed the registration of a mark that would have been confused with his client's, and the Board found for his client on standing, priority and likelihood of confusion.
When the Yellowstone trademark dispute between Taylor Sheridan and Cole Hauser broke in December 2023, Dallas station WFAA Channel 8 asked him to explain it on air. The full case list is on the litigation cases page.
What the practice covers
Enforcement
Infringement analysis against the accused product, cease and desist letters that are written to hold up in court rather than to bluff, licensing negotiations, and federal suits for patent, trademark and trade dress infringement.
Defense
Response to demand letters, non-infringement and invalidity analysis, declaratory judgment actions, and trial defense. A demand letter that cites a patent your product does not practise, or a patent that should never have issued, is not a reason to stop selling. It is a reason to call before you reply.
Proceedings at the USPTO
Trademark oppositions and cancellations before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, where the fight is over whether a mark should register at all.
How litigation is billed
The rest of the firm runs on flat fees. Litigation is the exception, because the opposing party controls half the timeline. What we hold to is quoting each phase in writing before it begins, from the first demand letter through discovery and trial, so the next step is never a surprise. The first consultation is free, and it starts with a plain answer about whether the case is worth bringing or worth fighting.