Intellectual property litigation attorney Mark Anchor Albert has successfully prosecuted and defended claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, theft of trade secrets and proprietary information (including confidential customer lists), patent infringement, and related claims for unfair competition and deceptive advertising in both state and federal courts. These cases -- which have involved the premier national intellectual property firms -- have asserted claims, for example, for:

1. Common Law Trademark Infringement (where a party’s alleged fraudulent conduct has caused and continues to cause a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or connection in the minds of the public);


2. Federal Trademark Infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, for the willful infringement of a company’s or individual’s registered trademarks;


3. Federal Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, concerning false designation of origin or false representation likely to cause confusion about the true source and ownership of a company’s products;


4. California Statutory Trademark Infringement under California Business and Professions Code § 14340;


5. California Unfair Competition and False Advertising under California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (prohibiting "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising");


6. Patent Infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285 et seq.;


7. Copyright Infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106 et seq.; and


8. Injunctive Relief barring further acts of infringement of trademarks, copyrights, or patents.

These cases have included historically important, national litigation such as:

Grokster P3P Filing Sharing Copyright Infringement Litigation

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.,
CV 01-08541-SVW (C.D. Ca., January 9, 2003) (Central Division)
The Honorable Steven Wilson, Judge presiding

Acacia Media California Central District Internet Litigation

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v. New Destiny Internet Group, LLC
Case No. SACV-02-1040 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v.Audio Communications, Inc
Case No. SA CV-02-1048 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v.VS Media, Inc. and IAAVC
Case No. SA CV-02-1063 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v. Ademia Multimedia, LLC
Case No. SA CV-02-1165 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v.International Web Innovations, Inc. and Offendale Commercial Ltd. BV
Case No. SA CV-03-217 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v. Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network
Case No. SA CV-03-218 JW (MLGX) (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v.Cybertrend, Inc.
Case No. SA CV-03-219 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v.Lightspeed Media Corp.
Case No. SA CV-03-259 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v. Adult Revenue Services, Innovative Ideas International, Global Intermedia, Inc. and AskCS.com, Inc.
Case No. SA CV-03-271 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v.Game Link, Inc.
Case No. SA CV-03-308 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v. Club Jenna, Inc. and CJ, Inc.
Case No. SA CV-03-1801 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc.; ACMP, LLC; and Global Media Resources SA.
Case No. SA CV-03-1803 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v. Global AVS, Inc., dba DrewNet
Case No. SA CV-03-1804 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v.ICS, Inc. and AP Net Marketing, Inc.
Case No. SA CV-02-1805 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v. National A-1 Advertising, Inc.
Case No. SA CV-03-1807 (C.D. Cal.) (Southern Division)
The Honorable James Ware, presiding (by special designation)

Acacia Media Ohio Cable Litigation

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v. Armstrong Group, Block Communications, Inc, dba Buckeye Cable,Wide Open West LLC, East Cleveland Cable TV and Communications, LLC, Nelsonville TV Cable Inc, and Massillon Cable TV, Inc.
Case No. 1:04-CV-1847 (N.D. Ohio)
The Honorable Patricia A. Gaughan, presiding

Acacia Media Minnesota Cable Litigation

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v Mid-Continent Media, Inc., US Cable Holdings LP, Sjoberg’s Cablevision, Inc., Savage Communications Inc., Loretel Cablevision, Arvig Communication System,and Cannon Valley Communications, Inc.
Case No. 04-4069 (D. Minn.)
The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, presiding

Acacia Media Arizona Cable Litigation

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v.Cable America Corporation, Cable One, Inc.,Precis Communications, Inc., Cable System Services, Inc.,San Carlos Cablevision, LLC, NPG Cable, Inc., and James A. Teilborg
United States District Court for Arizona
Case No. CV’04 1891 PHX JAT (D. Ariz.)
The Honorable James A. Teilborg, presiding

These cases have resulted in important published decisions, including:

• Streamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Techs., S.A., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (Defendants' alleged transfer of the technology out of the hands of plaintiff and into the exclusive control of other defendants even if violative of the provisions of the license agreement, did not result in higher prices or decreased output for the consuming public. As such, plaintiff failed to allege any cognizable antitrust injury).


• MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 454 F. Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (historic peer-to-peer file-sharing litigation).


• Streamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Techs., S.A., CV 06-391 FMC (Ex), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97393 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006) (antitrust complaint dismissed).


• Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, CV 05-01114 , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19314 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2007)


• Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93710 (N.D. Cal. Decl. 14, 2006)


• Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19314 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 2, 2007)


• Streamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Techs., S.A., CV 06-391 FMC (Ex), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97392 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006)


• Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, CV 05-01114, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2005);


• In re Acacia Media Techs. Corp., CV 05-01114 JW, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37009 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2005).

Intellectual property litigator Mark Anchor Albert can provide sophisticated representation to companies and individuals in trademark, copyright, patent, and trade secret litigation without charging the excessive fees required by larger firms. When you need intelligent, high-end, and “big firm” experience and expertise, with personalized one-on-one attention, but do not wish to pay “big firm” fees, you can count on Mr. Albert to serve you well.