“At Fitch Even, we strive to recognize and live up to the trust placed in us for handling all matters, from relatively minor disputes to bet-the-company cases.”
120 South LaSalle Street|
Chicago, IL 60603VCard
Karl R. Fink has been a partner in the firm since 1995. His practice includes all aspects of commercial litigation and intellectual property litigation, creation, management, enforcement, and licensing, with particular emphasis on patent litigation. Karl has been a full-time first-chair trial lawyer since 1981, handling hundreds of lawsuits in state and federal courts across the country, both at trial and on appeal. He represents numerous public and privately held companies, ranging in size from start-ups to Fortune 100 companies.
Clients have sought Karl’s counsel in a wide variety of intellectual property, commercial, and tort litigations. He has served as lead trial counsel for patent, trademark, unfair competition, copyright, and trade secret actions and has handled patent infringement actions, both on the plaintiff's side and the defendant's side. Karl handles alternative-fee and contingent-fee actions, as well as traditional hourly fee matters.
Karl has litigated complex cases involving an extensive range of technologies, products, industries, and issues. These include the following:
Karl has played a leading role in numerous successful patent enforcement and licensing campaigns on behalf of the firm's clients. Clients also rely on Karl for advice regarding infringement, validity and patentability opinions, IP valuation, joint ventures, IP licensing, and other related business decisions.
Karl previously served as Fitch Even’s Managing Partner and is currently a member of the firm's Executive Committee.
Vaxcel Int’l Co., Ltd. v. HeathCo, LLC, et al. (N.D. Ill. 2015). Representing defendant in patent litigation involving dimmable LED lighting technology.
Somaltus, LLC v. Auto Meter Prods., Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015). Representing defendant in patent litigation involving automobile battery testing and charging technology.
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Linear LLC (N.D. Ill. 2015). Representing plaintiff in patent infringement case involving network control of garage door openers.
Olivistar, LLC v. The Chamberlain Group, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015). Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving network control of garage door openers. (patent)
McDavid Knee Guard, Inc. and Stirling Mouldings Ltd. v. Nike USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2014). Represented plaintiffs in patent infringement action involving foam padding for sports apparel. Resolved on a confidential basis.
Bullets2Bandages, LLC v. Caliber Corp. (S.D. Cal. 2014). Represented Caliber in defense of a trademark infringement action. Case was settled in six months with Caliber taking assignment of the registered trademarks.
Milbon Co., Ltd., et al. v. Hair Color Research Group, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. 2013). Represented Milbon in this action for trademark infringement. Settlement negotiations resulted in an agreed permanent injunction and judgment being entered in favor of Milbon.
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. and Johnson Controls Interiors LLC v. Lear Corp. (N.D. Ill. 2011). Represented Chamberlain in a patent infringement action involving a rolling code encryption system for use with garage door openers. Confidential settlement reached on courthouse steps immediately before trial with Judge Posner. Obtained preliminary injunction against infringement. (software patent, antitrust)
Desa IP LLC and Heathco LLC v. EML Technologies LLC and Costco Wholesale Corp. (M.D. Tenn. 2009). Represented plaintiffs in patent infringement action involving light fixtures. Confidential settlement reached immediately before trial after granting of summary judgment on inequitable conduct claim in favor of plaintiffs. (patent)
Coilcraft v. Inductor Warehouse (N.D. Ill. 2008). Represented Coilcraft in this trademark infringement action against Inductor Warehouse, a seller of secondhand, surplus Coilcraft inductors. After discovery, Inductor Warehouse settled on the courthouse steps agreeing to a consent judgment. (trademark infringement)
Microchip Technology Inc. v. The Chamberlain Group, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2006). Represented Chamberlain in a declaratory judgment action brought by Microchip Technology Inc. Microchip sought a declaration that it was licensed under Chamberlain's encrypted security code patents covering Chamberlain's remote-control garage door openers. Chamberlain moved to dismiss for lack of a justiciable controversy because Microchip and Chamberlain had previously settled an earlier litigation wherein Microchip received a covenant not to sue under Chamberlain's patents. After a period of discovery, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of Microchip, but Chamberlain successfully appealed and obtained reversal. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted Chamberlain's request to have the entire action dismissed. On remand, the district court awarded over $185,000 in attorneys’ fees to Chamberlain. (declaratory judgment patent)
Vermeer Mfg. Co. v. Deere & Co. (D. Del. 2005). Represented Deere in a declaratory judgment action brought by Vermeer regarding patent on baler. Settlement reached. Vermeer sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a patent covering an improvement to a round baler. The court dismissed the action after Deere moved for dismissal because of the lack of a justiciable controversy. (patent)