Feared in the courtroom, yet we speak English in the boardroom.
Revision Legal’s attorneys have substantial experience litigating intellectual property and corporate disputes in federal and state courts across the county.
Litigation is usually not the first option. But when negotiations fail to produce an acceptable result, turning the court for resolution of issues becomes necessary. Litigation brings a host of new issues to the table, including court imposed rules, deadlines, procedures while outside factors such as cost, pressure, and impact on business are ever present. The result is a complex maze of issues.
We advise and counsel individuals and businesses through this process with an eye on the end goal. We pride ourselves on providing value to companies protecting their rights while watching legal expenses. We provide a number of billing options, including contingency, hybrid-contingency, flat rate, and a traditional hourly basis.
Revision Legal’s attorneys have substantial experience litigating intellectual property and corporate issues in federal and state courts across the county.
We litigate the following types of issues:
Contract: interpreting and enforcing contractual provisions and associated damages
Copyright: protecting creators/owners of original works
Corporate: resolving disputes between businesses and internal disputes between business owners
Domain Name Theft: recovering stolen domain portfolios
Employment: resolving disputes regarding noncompete agreements, discrimination, and compensation
Patent: addressing matters of claimed infringement on federally registered patents
Trademark: protecting a business’ ability to use its brand in connection with its goods and services, including actions for the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Trade Secret: protecting a businesses ability to use its formula, program, or process against direct competition
UDRP: Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Proceeding to protect ownership of domain names
Our attorneys have served as counsel in the following cases:
Papa et al. v. World Wrestling Entertainment et al., Northern District of Texas
Ritlabs SRL v. Ritlabs, Inc., Eastern District of Virginia
Ann Wigmore Foundation v. James Carey, Western District of Michigan
AVKO Educational Foundation v. Wave 3 Learning, Inc., Eastern District of Michigan
Malibu Media v. John Does, Eastern District of Michigan (lead counsel for intervenor)
SiteModel v. Fremer, District of Nevada
Alliance Telemed, LLC v. Alliance Telemedicine, LLC et al, Southern District of Indiana
Forward Reviews v. OverDrive, Inc., Northern District of Ohio, Western District of Michigan
Shoe Systems Plus v. Landis, Southern District of New York
Wittrig v. John T. Unger Studios, Western District of Michigan, Middle District of Tennessee
Sprinkler Warehouse v. SprinklerSupplyStore, Central District of California
Yesterday Flowers & Gifts, Inc. v. Just Flowers, Inc. et al., Eastern District of Michigan
Crowdsourcing, LLC v. CommunityLeader, Inc., Northern District of California
Pass Guaranteed, Ltd. v. Gaurav Bhagrath, National Arbitration Forum
InSight Health Corp. v. Jerry Grigoropoulos, National Arbitration Forum
Liss Ard Property Holdings & Developments Limited v. Veith Turske, World Intellectual Property Organization
3 Mings, LLC v. Nguyen, Superior Court of San Francisco
Song v Yinzhong Xie, Superior Court of San Francisco
Cade v. Pallet, Wexford County Circuit Court
Fredrickson v. Tech Results, Inc., Clark County Circuit Court, Las Vegas
Carson v. Palombo, Indianapolis, IN, Indiana Court of Appeals
Schmidt v. Raney, Manistee County Circuit Court
Halo Burger v. Leoni, Genesee County Circuit Court
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.