Ken Parker is a partner of Haynes and Boone and co-leader of Haynes and Boone's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group. He practices in the Orange County and Silicon Valley, California offices. Ken handles cases in federal courts throughout the country and focuses on patent, trademark, copyright and trade secrets litigation and analysis. In addition to his focus on intellectual property litigation, Ken also handles complex commercial litigation and business disputes. He is AV® Peer Review Rated Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell® Law Directory. Ken was selected for inclusion in Southern California Super Lawyers in 2012 and 2013.
Ken has first chair jury trial experience in patent, trademark and commercial litigation and has significant bench trial experience. Among his most recent achievements are:
- Ken won an $8.1 million jury trademark and trade dress infringement jury verdict against an NYSE-traded defendant represented by an AmLaw 100 firm prominent in the trademark area; the jury found trademark and trade dress infringement, found that the defendant acted willfully, and awarded punitive damages to Ken's clients; the case settled within a month of the verdict for $8.5 million (Case No. 8:11-CV-00452-AG (FMO) (C.D. Cal. 2012));
- Ken obtained a finding of non-willfulness in a bench trial of the issue in a patent infringement case (Case No. 2:10-CV-07416-RGK (SSx) (C.D. Cal. 2012)); and
- Ken obtained a judgment of more than $1 million after a bench trial of a trademark infringement; Ken obtained a win on all claims, double damages, a finding of willfulness, and a finding that the case was exceptional, entitling his client to damages, attorneys' fees and costs. (97 USPQ 2d 1629, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7037 (C.D. Cal. 2011).)
Prior to joining Haynes and Boone, Ken was a founding partner in Teuton, Loewy & Parker LLP, where he represented plaintiffs and defendants in intellectual property and complex business cases.
From 2001 to 2004, Ken served as Corporate Counsel, IP Litigation and Enforcement, of Callaway Golf Company. While at Callaway Golf, he managed patent, trademark and trade secrets litigation nationwide, including litigation in U.S. District Courts for the Middle District of Florida, Southern District of Texas, Central and Southern Districts of California, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Georgia and District of Delaware. Ken managed the litigation and enforcement program that produced record enforcement results for Callaway Golf and managed litigation and other claims that grossed the company more than $2.4 million in twelve months. He also managed enforcement of the company's intellectual property rights worldwide, including in the PRC, Europe and Taiwan.
Ken began his career as an attorney at O'Melveny & Myers LLP from 1995 to 2001. While at O'Melveny, he handled patent, trademark, trade secret, fraud, breach of contract, software and corporate control litigation. Among other trials, he was on the in-court trial team that won a $43 million verdict against the State of California while successfully defending a billion dollar counterclaim.
Ken clerked for Chief Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from 1994 to 1995.
Representative Patent and Other Intellectual Property Litigation Experience
- Currently representing a Fortune 500 company defending claims of patent infringement. In defending damages and willfulness phases of trial, obtained court ruling in defendants’ favor on willfulness and obtained $5 million jury verdict in a case where plaintiff sought more than $48 million in damages. (C.D. Cal.)
- Represented Binder & Binder in a trademark infringement case brought under the Lanham Act; obtained a verdict for the client on all claims, a finding of willfulness, double damages, and a finding that the case was exceptional, resulting in an attorneys' fee award. (97 USPQ 2d 1629, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7037 (C.D. Cal. 2011))
- Represented a patent holder asserting patent infringement of laser-related technology. (D. Del.)
- Represented manufacturer of golf-related GPS technology in defense of patent infringement suit. (S.D. Fla.)
- Represented software company defending against claims of patent infringement. (E.D. Tex.)
- Currently representing chip manufacturer defending against claims of patent infringement. (E.D. Tex.)
- Represented a chip manufacturer defending claims of patent infringement. (C.D. Cal.)
- Represented a supplier of tutoring services in defending a trademark infringement claim. (C.D. Cal.)
- Represented the holder of a patent on photo processing technology in patent infringement suit against photo processor; case settled favorably. (D. Del.)
- Represented a golf equipment manufacturer in pursuing patent and trademark infringement claims and obtained a stipulated permanent injunction. (S.D. Cal.)
- Represented an inventor in companion trade secrets theft and patent inventorship correction cases. The cases successfully settled. (D. Del. and California Superior Court, Alameda County.)
- Represented a nutraceutical patent holder and manufacturer in pursuit of patent infringement claim; case settled after discovery. (C.D. Cal.)
- Represented software client in the TTAB and, later, in U.S. District Court in trademark infringement and cancellation proceedings. (TTAB and W.D. Tex.)
- Defended restaurant client as respondent in TTAB trademark cancellation proceeding.
- Pursued copyright infringement and idea theft claims on behalf of vendor against for-profit hospital; case successfully settled. (California Superior Court, Orange County.)
- Defended web design company against claims of copyright infringement arising out of use of photos; case successfully settled. (C.D. Cal.)
- Defended advertiser accused of misappropriation of likeness and invasion of privacy; case successfully settled first day of trial. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County.)
- Filed the first case under the Anti-Cybersquatting and Consumer Protection Act. (Heritage Carbide Inc v. Federal Carbide Co., et al, C.D. Cal. 1999.)
Representative Complex Commercial Litigation Experience
- Represented major home developer in jury trial in California Superior Court in December 2011. (S.D. Superior Ct.)
- Represented plaintiffs in a case tried to verdict in federal court in December 2009. The case settled favorably while the jury deliberated, and in fact the jury returned its verdict to the bench as the parties informed the judge. The judge sealed the verdict and it remains unknown. (C.D. Cal.)
- Currently representing Phoenix Life Insurance Company in multiple lawsuits in the U.S. District Court, Southern and Central Districts of California, and Superior Courts of California, Los Angeles County and Santa Barbara Counties.
- Represented Phoenix Life Insurance in an adversary proceeding brought by bankruptcy debtor; obtained Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, without leave, on grounds of res judicata/claim preclusion. (C.D. Cal. Bankruptcy Court.)
- Represented defendant in a RICO action; obtained dismissal, without leave, to amend via Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. (C.D. Cal.)
- Represented a for-profit secondary education company in suit to enforce exclusive dealing clause; defeated defendant's summary judgment motion, in which defendant unsuccessfully argued that the exclusive dealing clause was an illegal covenant not to compete under California law; case successfully settled after the Court's ruling. (C.D. Cal.)
- Represented a for-profit secondary education company in suit with national real-estate broker over termination of exclusive services contract. (Superior Court of California, Orange County.)
- Represented West Coast auto repair vendor in software dispute with vendor in arbitration.
- Represented a large seller of computer peripherals and accessories in a commercial arbitration in February 2010. The case settled after three days of hearing.
- Represented a major software developer in a lawsuit over a terminated software development project. Handled all phases of trial and preparation, including direct and cross-examination of material witnesses and experts during the ensuing two-month trial. The developer won a $43 million verdict against the State of California while successfully defending a billion dollar responsive claim. (California Superior Court, Sacramento County.)
- Represented a corporation in a jury trial in which the plaintiff sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement with a fellow shareholder. Successfully pressed a counter-claim by the corporation for breach of fiduciary duty. Case settled mid-trial. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County.)
- On behalf of an NYSE-traded client, sued and identified an anonymous poster posting alleged defamatory messages on an investors' board. (California Superior Court, Orange County.)
- Represented an NYSE-traded company in defending allegations that a plaintiff had a partnership interest in the business that the client had acquired. Obtained a complete dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. (California Superior Court, Orange County.)
- Represented a plaintiff pursuing fraud claims against three defendants in connection with their purchase of shares in a closely held company. Handled all phases of that litigation and pursued the final defendant in bankruptcy court, eventually obtaining a non-dischargeable judgment. (California Superior Court, Orange County.)
- In a dispute between two 50/50 shareholders of a company, obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting the waste of assets and preventing the defendant president and shareholder from further damaging the company. (California Superior Court, Riverside County.)
- Represented a minority shareholder of a closely held company and obtained a temporary restraining order forcing the directors in power to run the business in the ordinary course of business and not waste its assets. (California Superior Court, Orange County.)
Selected Representative Experience
Mixed Chicks LLC v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division
Won a jury verdict for trademark and trade dress infringement against Sally Beauty Supply for a total of $8,114,535 in actual and punitive damages on behalf of Mixed Chicks LLC, maker of the MIXED CHICKS® line of premium hair care products. Within 30 days of the jury verdict the defendant chose to settle the case by paying Mixed Chicks $8.5 million. The defendant was represented by an AmLaw 100 firm throughout the case. Both sides presented likelihood of confusion survey testimony of nationally-known survey experts at trial.
Trademark Expert Survey Evidence
Worked with a leading trademark survey expert on the design and implementation of a consumer survey designed to measure the likelihood of confusion between two trademarks for use in a trademark infringement lawsuit.
Trigger Sprayer Manufacturing Litigation
Representation of global manufacturer of trigger sprayers accused of violating federal and state antitrust laws through alleged exclusive dealing contracts.
05/16/2013 - Nuggets in the Ashes: A Few Guideposts Unearthed from CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation
The Federal Circuit released the results of its en banc
hearing of a case involving the issue of what is patent eligible subject matter under section 101 of the Patent Act.
01/30/2013 - The IP Beacon, January 2013
A Haynes and Boone Newsletter highlighting current issues in Intellectual Property Law.
01/24/2013 - Case Study: Valuable IP Lessons from Our $8.1 Million Mixed Chicks Trademark and Trade Dress Victory
On November 2, 2012, a California jury returned an $8.1 million verdict in favor of Mixed Chicks, LLC against Sally Beauty Supply LLC. The jury found that Sally Beauty had infringed the MIXED CHICKS trademark and the trade dress of Mixed Chicks’ premium hair care products.
10/20/2011 - Intervening Rights and Invalidity-Argument Estoppel in Litigation After Patent Reexamination
The Federal Circuit recently resolved two issues of first impression as to how patent reexamination proceedings affect related patent infringement litigation. These two cases, Marine Polymer and Bettcher Industries, are likely to have a significant impact on both litigation and reexamination-proceeding practices, as well as the strategic interplay between them.
06/13/2011 - The Status Quo Wins: Clear and Convincing Proof is Still Required to Invalidate Patent Claims
The Supreme Court ruled last week in Microsoft Corporation v. i4i Limited Partnership
that “clear and convincing evidence” is still the standard of proof required to invalidate a patent.
05/13/2010 - To Have Committed Inequitable Conduct or Not? That is the Question - to be Answered
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all U.S. patent infringement appeals, issued an order on April 26, 2010 requesting briefs from the parties in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co.
(appeal no. 2008-1511) to consider en banc
the standards by which courts should find “inequitable conduct.”