Tom Zellerbach knows how to quickly and creatively resolve IP litigation, safeguarding his clients’ precious time and financial resources.

When representing global technology leaders or emerging companies, he looks at each case with fresh eyes, tailoring his strategy to each client’s particular legal and business objectives, as well as their company culture.

Having handled dozens of trademark, copyright and advertising disputes before the federal courts, U.S.P.T.O., T.T.A.B. and the National Advertising Division, he knows how to obtain the best possible result, whether through a trial victory or by resolving a dispute before litigation.

  • Tom's notable civil representations include the following.

    • Alstom ESCA Corporation. In ABB Power T&D Company, Inc. v. Alstom ESCA Corporation (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented Alstom ESCA Corporation in litigation of trade secret, copyright, and false advertising claims involving software projects for the electrical energy industry.  The case went through trial with a verdict for our client.
    • Microsoft Corporation.  In Microsoft v. Zviely, et al (C.D. Cal.), Tom obtained a permanent injunction for Microsoft in a trademark infringement and cybersquatting matter.  in Microsoft v. Shah, et al. (W.D. Wash.), Tom won a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting under the Federal Lanham Act. 
    • Mindscape, Inc.  In Mindscape, Inc. and Grolier Interactive, Inc. v. Media Depot, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented Mindscape and Grolier in litigation of copyright and trademark infringement claims involving counterfeit multimedia software programs.  In addition to obtaining a seizure order and Temporary Restraining Order, Tom obtained a complete judgment against the counterfeiting defendants.
    • Columbia Pictures Indus. In Columbia Pictures Indus., et al. v. Rainbow Video (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented Columbia Pictures in a matter involving counterfeit motion picture videos.  Judgment was entered against defendants.
    • Intel Corporation. In Streater v. Intel Corp. (C.D. Cal.), Tom represented Intel in defense of copyright infringement claims and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.
    • Mobileiron Inc.  In Good Technology Corporation v. Mobileiron Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Tom represented Mobileiron in defense of the false advertising claim in a combined patent and false advertising case against Mobileiron.  The jury returned a defense verdict on all claims.
    • Advanced Micro Devices. In Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Altera Corporation (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented AMD in litigation of a dispute involving patents for semiconductor devices.
    • Applied Materials, Inc. In Applied Materials, Inc. v. Semiconductor Spares, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented Applied Materials in litigation of copyright infringement, trade secret and RICO claims involving semiconductor fabrication technology. In Peak Systems, Inc. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (Santa Clara Sup. Ct.), Tom represented Applied Materials in litigation of trade secret, trade libel, unfair competition and contract claims. In Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductors, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented Applied Materials is litigation of patent infringement claims.
    • Logitech, Inc. In Logitech, Inc. v. KYE Systems Corp. (E.D. Tex.), Tom represented Logitech in litigation of patent infringement claims involving computer mouse design and technology. In Voyetra v. Logitech (S.D.N.Y.), he represented Logitech in litigation of trademark infringement claims. In ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Logitech (D. Utah), he represented Logitech in litigation of trademark infringement claims. 
    • Radical Games, Ltd. In Sega Corp. v. Radical Games, Ltd., Tom represented Radical Games in litigation of patent and copyright claims involving computer games.
    • WatchGuard Technologies. In NorthPeak Wireless, LLC, v. 3Com Corporation, et al. (N.D. Cal.), Tom has represented WatchGuard in litigation of patent infringement claims involving wireless alarm systems using spread spectrum transmitters and receivers and fast frequency shift keying. In WatchGuard Technologies v. Gomez (W.D. Wash.), he represented WatchGuard Technologies in litigation of claims involving internet domain names and trademarks.
    • E. & J. Gallo. In Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented Gallo in litigation of trademark and trade dress infringement claims.
    • AT&T Corp. In Cable & Wireless, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented AT&T in litigation of false advertising claims and obtained dismissal of claims against our client.
    • Acta Technology, Inc. In Acta Technology, Inc. v Sagent Technology (N.D. Cal.) and in Sagent Technology v. Acta Technology, Inc. (Santa Clara Sup. Ct.), Tom represented Acta Technology in litigation of copyright and trade secret claims involving software.
    • McKenzie River Corp. In Policappelli v. McKenzie River Corp., et al. (C.D. Cal.), Tom represented McKenzie River in litigation of patent infringement claims involving beverage containers and convinced the plaintiff to dismiss all claims against our client.
    • Mervyn's Brands, LLC. In LA Printex Indus., Inc. v. Mervyn's LLC (C.D. Cal.), Tom has represented Mervyn's in litigation of copyright infringement claims.
    • NSA Corp. In Remy Int'l Inc. v. NSA Corp. (D. Nev.), Tom has represented NSA in litigation of trademark infringement claims.
    • WonderHill Inc. In Crowdstar Inc. v. Wonderhill Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented Wonderhill in litigation of copyright infringement claims involving on-line video games.
    • Cullman Ventures, Inc. In a series of cases, including Mission Street Press v. At-A-Glance/Day Dream, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Voorhees v. Chippendales U.S.A., et. al. (C.D. Cal.) and Vafaei v. Day Dream, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented entities of Cullman Ventures and Landmark General, Corp. in litigation of copyright claims involving graphic designs.
    • Quick 'N Brite, Inc. In Sunshine Makers, Inc. v. Quick 'N Brite, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Tom represented Quick 'N Brite in litigation of false advertising claims.


Insights

News