John S. Letchinger

John Letchinger is the Chair of the Intellectual Property Department at Wildman Harrold. An accomplished trial attorney, John handles intellectual property and related commercial disputes, including patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright infringement; breach of license and contract; and, unfair competition, false advertising, electronic commerce and data security cases. Regularly representing industry-leading manufacturers and retailers, John has litigated a wide range of complex disputes, including successfully trying five cases within the last five years. In addition to his significant trial experience, he is a respected counselor to his clients in complex and multifaceted intellectual property and related matters. Held in high esteem by his colleagues and clients, John was honored by Chicago Lawyer and Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s prestigious “40 Under 40” list—a compilation of Illinois’ finest young attorneys.

Representative Experience:

Defending national retailers in high-profile data security disputes regarding fraudulent credit card transactions, payment card industry standards and alleged security violations. Advising companies on all matters regarding compliance requirements, customer and media relations, cooperation with law enforcement agencies, forensic analysis of financial transactions, and proper determination of liability and source of security intrusions.
Successful defense of client, TouchCom, in an intellectual property license dispute before a three-member arbitration panel. In a week-long trial, Dresser, Inc., the exclusive licensee, attempted to prove that it had the right to use much of the technology it licensed from TouchCom for a zero royalty and to sue third parties for infringement of the licensed patent. The panel ruled in TouchCom’s favor. The award paved the way to a multi-million dollar settlement of TouchCom’s pending patent infringement case against an industry-leading manufacturer of gasoline dispensing products. Dresser, Inc. v. TouchCom Technologies, Inc. (American Arbitration Association).
Successful prosecution of a trade secrets case involving the misappropriation of product concepts, which Learning Curve (the declaratory judgment plaintiff) erroneously patented and transformed into an industry-leading product. After nine years of litigation, including a jury verdict in the client’s favor, the Seventh Circuit issued a precedent setting opinion, ruled in PlayWood’s favor (reinstating a jury verdict that awarded an 8 percent royalty) and remanded the case for trial on punitive damages. The case soon settled on favorable terms for Playwood. Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v. PlayWood Toys, Inc., 343 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2003).
Successful prosecution of a patent infringement case through trial and appeal on behalf of industry-leading Quickie Manufacturing Corporation, in which the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s infringement finding. The case involved an invention directed to a locking mechanism for push brooms. In its Memorandum Opinion, the District Court specifically noted that Mr. Letchinger had repeatedly, seriously impeached Libman’s primary witness, its Chief Executive Officer, and made a finding that the witness was not credible. Libman Company v. Quickie Manufacturing Corporation, 74 Fed. Appx. 900, 2003 WL 22025068 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Defended longterm client, Ondeo Nalco Company (declaratory judgment plaintiff), in a patent infringement case involving a chemical additive and method for manufacturing paper. After opening statements and during examination of Eka’s first expert witness during jury trial, Ondeo Nalco moved for a mistrial, arguing that opposing counsel had improperly elicited testimony in violation of prior rulings by the court. The court granted Ondeo Nalco’s request for a mistrial, and the case favorably settled shortly thereafter. Ondeo Nalco Company v. Eka Chemical, Inc., Case No. 01-537-SLR (D.C. Del.).
Successful defense of Northfield Corporation in a patent infringement case through trial. The case involved product and method claims directed to the insertion of coupons into packages and containers. The case was “bet-the-company” for Northfield, as it threatened its primary product-line. After a jury verdict of non-infringement in favor of Northfield, the case settled following oral argument before the Federal Circuit on Northfield’s appeal of the District Court’s denial of attorneys fees. Unique Coupons v. Northfield Corp., Case No. 99-C-7445 (N.D. Ill.).
Representation of leading supplier of gifts and novelties in an unfair competition and breach of license dispute, including oral hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction. In combating the wide-range of defenses asserted by defendants, Mr. Letchinger was able to convince the District Court that advertising under the Lanham Act included oral statements made to attendees at trade shows.
Representation of a leading consumer products manufacturer in multiple unfair competition, Lanham Act, and copyright cases against competitors involving product and product packaging claims and misrepresentations, colors, trademarks, and trade dress. The cases favorably settled, resulting in changes to defendants’ products and packaging.
Defense of Samsung Corporation in a patent infringement case filed against several leading manufacturers of cellular phones. The accused devices were cellular camera phones. After John was successful in moving the court to bifurcate damages and liability, Samsung was able to settle the case.
Successfully defeated copyright, trade secret, and breach of contract actions against a newly formed software company, which was comprised of several former employees of the plaintiff company, including the author and creator of plaintiff’s competitive auditing software. In an attempt to exploit the limited resources of a nascent company, plaintiffs turned to litigation in an effort to put the new company out of business. On the eve of trial, the case settled following entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the copyright infringement claims.
Defense of Oil Dri Corporation, a leading manufacturer of animal litter, in a patent infringement case that threatened the viability of the company. With the plaintiff having waited years to bring suit after first contacting Oil Dri, the defense developed compelling evidence of non infringement and invalidity, in addition to laches and estoppel. The case settled following the deposition of the inventor and defendant’s submission of expert reports.
Prosecution of copyright infringement action relating to the misappropriation and copying of technical drawings. While the case was on appeal to the Seventh Circuit following a protracted bench trial, the case settled of favorable terms.
Successful defense of manufacturing client, Tensor Corporation in Rule to Show Cause proceedings. Tensor Corporation purchased out of bankruptcy the assets of Dev Corporation, which was forced out of business following the entry of an injunction against it in a case brought by Rockwell International. Rockwell later filed a Rule to Show Cause motion against Tensor, accusing it of violating the permanent injunction previously entered against Dev. After convincing the District Court twice to dismiss the proceedings on privity and timing grounds and following two appeals to the Seventh Circuit, the case settled before the Court ever heard argument on the merits.
Regularly serves as outside counsel for all intellectual property matters, for public and private corporations, including prosecution of patents, trademarks, and copyrights; maintenance of intellectual property portfolios; advertising and marketing clearance; and pre-litigation counseling, strategy, and clearance. Provides ongoing counsel to numerous clients in intellectual property due diligence matters and the creation and maintenance of outside inventor programs.

Professional Associations:

American Bar Association

Inns of Court

Phi Beta Kappa

Bar Admissions:

Illinois

U.S. Court of Appeals for Seventh and Federal Circuits

U.S. District Courts for the Northern (Trial Bar member) and Central Districts of Illinois

Please be aware, if you are not a current client of the firm, the attorney-client privilege does not exist and therefore confidential or sensitive information should not be sent in this email message.

I Understand
Cancel