Glenn E. Forbis

Principal / Detroit Metro Office

Glenn is a dynamic litigator and trial attorney. He is valued for understanding each client’s specific goals and technology, as well as for the early development of a focused strategy. A tenacious advocate, Glenn consistently delivers concise and influential presentations in court and to juries, centered on understandable and persuasive themes.

Glenn has appeared as lead or co-lead trial attorney in more than 150 patent, trademark, and copyright cases in Federal Courts across the country, and has handled 15 Federal Circuit appeals. In an age when actual trial experience is rare, Glenn has tried six cases to verdict. Most recently, Glenn and his team secured a jury verdict that found his client’s patent was valid and willfully infringed. The verdict also awarded lost profit damages. The Court followed up the jury’s verdict with an injunction and trebling of the jury’s damage award.

Glenn’s clients have included emerging and middle market companies, as well as large, international corporations such as Ford Motor Company, Emerson Electric, FCA USA, LLC, Delphi Corporation, Dassault Systemes, S.E., Sika Corporation, and Stahls’ Inc. Glenn has successfully defended multiple patent infringement claims in excess of $75 million and, on the Plaintiff’s side, has twice achieved recoveries for his clients in excess of $30 million. On the trademark side, Glenn obtained several injunctions against infringers of the “Citizens Bank” mark and successfully defended former Temptations lead singer, Dennis Edwards, against claims that he infringed the “Temptations” mark, among other matters.

Practice Areas

Industries

REPRESENTATIVE PATENT MATTERS

Western Plastics Inc. v. DuBose Strapping Inc. (E.D. NC)
Technology: Reinforced wrapping material for steel coils
Result: Jury Verdict in favor of client finding patent valid, willfully infringed, and awarding lost profits. Court awarded treble damages and issued an injunction. Federal Circuit affirmed all aspects of the judgement on appeal.
Stahls’ Inc. v. Schwendimann (PTAB)
Technology: Thermal image transfer sheets
Result: Invalidated all asserted claims from four patents in underlying federal court litigation
Zak v. Facebook, Inc. (PTAB)
Technology: software
Result: successfully defended against four IPR Petitions, resulting in PTAB denying institution of trial on all claims
InterMetro Industries Corp. v. Rubbermaid Inc., Ergotron, Inc., Howard Industries Corp., Capsa Solutions LLC (M.D. PA)
Technology: medical mobile computer workstations
Result: five separate multi-million dollar license agreements
Lectec Corporation v. Chattem Inc et al. (E.D. TX.)
Technology: medicated transdermal pain relief patch
Result: $30 million settlements (aggregate) on eve of trial
Fleming v. Ford Motor Company (D. DC)
Technology: automotive vehicle safety systems
Result: summary judgment of non-infringement favorable to client
Nagle Industries, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company (E.D. MI)
Technology: automotive brake control
Result: summary judgment of non-infringement, affirmed on appeal
Automotive Technologies Int’l, Inc. v.Delphi Corporation (E.D. MI)
Technology: automotive safety systems
Result: summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of patent in favor of client
Lautzenhiser Technologies, LLC v. Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc., Delphi Medical Systems (S.D. IN)
Technology: electronic control system
Result: favorable settlement after key discovery and summary judgment motion
Shertech Inc. v. L&W Engineering, Inc. (E.D. MI)
Technology: heat shields for automotive industry
Result: jury verdict of non-infringement in favor of client; affirmed on appeal by Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corporation et al. (N.D. CA)
Technology: integrated silicon chip manufacturing
Result: summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement; affirmed by Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Thomas Medical Products, Inc. v. Guidant Corporation (E.D. PA)
Technology: medical device – hemostatic valve device
Result: favorable settlement after Markman hearing
Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Spectranetics Corporation (D. DE)
Technology: medical device – laser angioplasty delivery device
Result: favorable settlement on eve of trial
Rugged Liner, Inc. v. CYC Engineering, Inc. (E.D. MI)
Technology: pick-up truck bed covers
Result: Favorable license agreement
Island Intellectual Property et al. v. Promontory Interfinancial Network, et al. (S.D. NY)
Technology: financial services methods
Result: favorable settlement on eve of trial
Sumitomo Mitsubishi Silicon Corporation et al v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (N.D. CA)
Technology: integrated chip manufacturing)
Result: favorable settlement following dispositive motions
Boler Company v. Neway Anchorlok International, Inc. (N.D. OH)
Technology: heavy duty automotive suspension systems
Result: summary judgment of non-infringement; affirmed by Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Circle R, Inc. et al. v. Trail King Industries, Inc. (D. NE)
Technology: commercial dump truck technology
Result: summary judgment of non-infringement; affirmed by Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Arrow Comm’n Labs, Inc. v. John Mezzalingua Associates (N.D. NY)
Technology: electronic filters for cable television systems
Result: favorable settlement after positive Markman ruling and summary judgment motions
Rentrop v. Spectranetics Corporation (D. CO)
Technology: medical device – laser angioplasty catheter
Result: jury verdict of infringement; affirmed by Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Chrimar Systems Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. (E.D. MI)
Technology: voice-over-internet
Result: favorable settlement and license agreement after positive Markman ruling
Niro A/S and Babcock & Wilcox v. American Ref-Fuel Co. (D. NJ)
Technology: incinerator flue gas cleaning process
Result: favorable settlement and injunction
Niro A/S et al. v. Montenay International et al (E.D. PA)
Technology: incinerator flue gas cleaning process
Result: favorable settlement after discovery
Builder’s Best, Inc. v. Nemco, Inc. (W.D. MI)
Technology: residential construction products
Results: favorable settlements after positive pre-trial rulings and just prior to trial
Builder’s Best, Inc v. Atcoflex, Inc, et al. (W.D. MI)
Technology: residential construction products
Result: favorable settlement after positive pre-trial rulings
Stahls’ Inc. et al v. Geo Knight & Co, Inc. (W.D. PA)
Technology: printing technology
Result: favorable settlement after discovery
Pequignot v. Arrow Fastener Company, Inc.(E.D. TX)
Nature of Case: false patent marking
Result: favorable settlement following client’s motion to transfer
Henkel Corporation v. Sika Corporation (E.D. MI)
Technology: automotive structural reinforcing technology
Result: favorable settlement after discovery
Arrow Fastener Company Inc et al v. K R Tools Inc. (C.D. CA)
Technology: hand tools
Result: favorable settlement before discovery
Adams Mfg Corp v. ZP Enterprises Inc, et al. (W.D. PA)
Technology: suction cups for bathroom accessories
Result: favorable settlement during mediation
Linear Transfer Systems, Inc. v. Wayne Trail Tech Inc. (E.D. MI)
Technology: automated manufacturing system
Result: favorable settlement during discovery
Alsons Corporation v. DM Industries, Ltd (W.D. MI)
Technology: residential spa technology
Result: favorable settlement during discovery
Sika Corporation v. OSC Industries Inc. (E.D. MI)
Technology: automotive structural reinforcing technology
Result: favorable settlement during discovery
Henkel Corp v. Sika Corporation (E.D. MI)
Technology: automotive structural reinforcers
Result: favorable settlement during discovery
Harmonic Design Inc v. Techniku Holding B V, et al. (C.D. CA)
Technology: wireless electronic controls for window coverings
Result: favorable settlement after positive rulings
Comfortex Corp. v. Jet Plastics, Inc. (C.D. CA)
Technology: window coverings
Result: favorable settlement after discovery and positive rulings
Keeler Brass Company v. Continental Brass Co. (W.D. MI)
Technology: residential hardware for cabinets
Result: favorable settlement during discovery

REPRESENTATIVE TRADEMARK MATTERS

Citizens Banking Corp. v. Citizens First Bancorp, Inc. et al. (E.D. MI)
Result: court granted preliminary injunction in favor of client; affirmed by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Citizens Banking Corp., et al v. CNB Bancshares Inc.
Result: court granted motion for preliminary injunction in favor of client; favorable settlement, including permanent injunction
Citizens Banking Corp., et al v. Citizens Rapid Cash, et al. (E.D. MI)
Result: favorable settlement, including permanent injunction
Citizens Banking Corp. v. Client First Mortgage Co. (W.D. MI)
Result: favorable settlement after positive court rulings
Citizens Banking Corp.v. Citizens Financial Group (E.D. MI)
Result: verdict of non-infringement, resting on finding that extensive third-party use of “Citizens” had diluted trademark owner’s rights
Sports Authority, Inc. v. Justballs Inc, et al. (E.D. MI)
Result: favorable settlement after precedential decision by court confirming jurisdiction based on interactive website
Iwanna, Inc v. Iwanta Classifieds, et al. (W.D. NC)
Result: jury verdict of trademark infringement and permanent injunction
Lancers Inc v. Douglas Reuther Prod, et al. (E.D. MI)
Result: summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of client
Genesee Brewing Co v. Stroh Brewery Co. (W.D. MI)
Result: summary judgment that “Honey Brown” mark was generic; affirmed by Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Otis Williams, et al v. Dennis Edwards, et al. (C.D. CA)
Result: favorable settlement permitting use of “Temptations” formative mark by Dennis Edwards, former lead singer of the “Temptations”
B&B Protector Plans, Inc. v. US Legal Services, Inc. (M.D. FL)
Result: favorable settlement during discovery
Alliance Technology, Inc. v. Alliance Walnut Int’l Corp. (E.D. MI)
Result: favorable settlement following preliminary injunction motion
Xcel Energy, Inc. v. Delta Faucet Company (D. MN.)
Result: favorable settlement during discovery
Michigan Auto Title Service, Inc. v. Auto Title LLC (E.D. MI)
Result: favorable settlement, including permanent injunction
Vortech Pharm. v. Delmarva Lab Inc. (E.D. MI)
Result: favorable settlement during discovery
World of Floors USA Inc v. Carpet World and Floors, et al. (E.D. MI)
Result: favorable settlement following preliminary injunction motion
Harley Davidson, Inc. et al v. Harley’s Pub Inc, et al. (E.D. MI)
Result: favorable settlement, including permanent injunction
Officemax, Inc, et al v. Copymax, Inc. (S.D. FL)
Result: favorable settlement during discovery

REPRESENTATIVE COPYRIGHT MATTERS

Dassault Systemes, SA v. Childress (E.D. MI)
Nature of Case: copyright infringement (software) and defense of anti-trust claims.
Result: favorable jury verdict of copyright infringement; substantial damage award; dismissal of 11 counterclaims on summary judgment. (Judgment vacated and case remanded by 6^th Circuit on procedural bases)

Direct: 248.641.1249

Fax: 248.641.0270

Download vCard

Practice Areas

Industries

In the News

Events

2015 Patent Consultation Group, “PTAB Proceedings, Litigation and More,” Speaker, Webinar Discussion

Articles

Blogs

Glenn has an established track record of litigation success in over two decades of practice. Glenn has appeared in 150+ patent and/or trademark infringement cases in federal courts across the country, more than half of those as lead or co-lead counsel. In an age when actual trial experience is rare in intellectual property cases, Glenn has litigated five cases through full trials to verdicts, and has taken many others to the courthouse steps. He has also briefed and argued 15 Federal Circuit appeals and four other appeals.

A registered Patent Attorney, Glenn represents clients before the USPTO in Post Grant Review and Inter Partes Review proceedings. He regularly provides opinions concerning infringement, validity, right-to-use, patent landscape, design-around issues and due diligence in corporate transactions.

Glenn consults with and provides strategic direction to high-technology start-up and emerging companies focused on developing high-value intellectual property portfolios intended for future monetization and/or competitive and M&A activities. He is also involved in the negotiation and preparation of IP licenses and related agreements.

Glenn has litigated a wide array of technologies, including automotive systems, medical devices, computer and semiconductor technologies and lasers. His capabilities span a variety of electrical and mechanical technologies, including semi-conductors, electronics, control systems, lasers, electronic displays, engine components, several automotive technologies, telecommunications, networking, vehicle reinforcement components and medical devices.

Glenn enjoys water and snow skiing, hockey, SCUBA diving, kayaking and biking.

Awards & Distinctions

Best Lawyers, Copyright Law “Lawyer of the Year” in Troy, 2021
Best Lawyers, Litigation – Patent “Lawyer of the Year” in Troy, 2018, 2020
Best Lawyers, Litigation – Intellectual Property “Lawyer of the Year” in Troy, 2019
Best Lawyers, Litigation – Intellectual Property, 2013-2022
Best Lawyers, Trademark Law, 2014-2022
Best Lawyers, Patent Law and Litigation – Patent, 2016-2022
Best Lawyers, Copyright Law, 2022
Michigan Lawyers Weekly, “Go To Lawyers” for Intellectual Property, 2022
Managing Intellectual Property, “IP Stars,” 2013-2021
Managing Intellectual Property, Short List of “Top IP Litigators” in Michigan, 2015-2018, 2021
Intellectual Asset Management (IAM), “IAM Patent 1000,” 2021
Leading Lawyers, named a “Leading Lawyer” for Copyright & Trademark, Intellectual Property, and Patents, 2014-2021
Michigan Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property, 2006-2021
DBusiness Magazine, “Top Lawyer,” Litigation – Intellectual Property, 2014-2022; Trade Secrets, 2022; Litigation – Patents, 2021; Patent Law, 2021; Intellectual Property and Patent Law, 2016-2017; Trademark Law, 2015
Montclair “Who’s Who” Among Law Professionals, 2010-2014
Crain’s Detroit Business, “40 Under 40,” 2007