Selected Engagements

Underlined party denotes Crossfield client.

Apple, Inc. vs. Psystar Corporation

Conduct consumer research to determine the degree to which elements of trade dress claimed by Apple, Inc. have acquired secondary meaning. Additionally, conduct consumer research to determine the likelihood of confusion in both pre-sale and post-sale environments.

Hoffman et al. vs. American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc.

Conduct consumer research to determine consumers' perceptions and likelihood of confusion with respect to offers for travel insurance.

 Statement of Decision, with discussion of testimony provided by Crossfield Associates’ Carol Scott, in which the Court finds that neither the claims of the class, nor the claims of the class representatives in particular, were established by the evidence.

Weiner, Berube et al. vs. The Dannon Company

Determine whether standard marketing research techniques could be used to assess consumers' general reliance on marketing communications related to certain 'functional food' products. Additionally, rebut expert's opinions with respect to a survey conducted to measure consumer reliance on defendant's advertising.

Candela Corporation vs. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc.

Rebut plaintiff expert's opinions with respect to marketing issues, including the relevant market and demand for certain technology related to light-based aesthetic devices.

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University vs. Roche Molecular Systems et al.

Rebut plaintiff's characterization of the relationship between physicians who order certain laboratory tests and the entities which conduct other steps in performance of such tests.

 From Law.com: “San Francisco Federal District Court Judge Marilyn Patel ruled on summary judgment in May 2008 that its claims were invalid because of obviousness. In September the Federal Circuit ruled that Stanford couldn’t establish ownership of the patents at issue, meaning that it didn’t have standing to sue in the first place.”

Brighton Collectibles Inc. vs. Coldwater Creek, Inc.

Conduct consumer research to determine likelihood of confusion between handbags based on trade dress features.

Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. Ltd vs. Mediatek, Inc., et al.

Rebut plaintiff's description of the market for certain large-scale integrated circuits and Calculation of plaintiff's share of that market had the defendant not sold products allegedly infringing products.

E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc., dba The Playpen vs. Rock Star Videos, Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., and Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc.

Conduct research to assess the likelihood that consumers would be confused by the depiction of a business in a video game.

 In granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court favorably cites Dr. Scott’s survey, which demonstrated that the elements at-issue of Defendants’ video game presented a low likelihood of confusion regarding Plaintiffs’ sponsorship or endorsement of the game.

Clark and Eldred vs. Experian North America, Inc.

Conduct research to determine consumers' likelihood of confusion with respect to an online offer.

Excelligence Learning Corp. vs. Oriental Trading Company, Inc.

Assess marketing strategy used in the development of a new catalog, the degree to which plaintiff has established secondary meaning based on look and feel, and consumers' likelihood of confusion between the two catalogs.

 Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted. “[I]t was only upon thorough analysis of Professor Scott's survey that the Court concluded that there was not enough evidence to create a triable issue on the issue of secondary meaning with respect to the trade dress claim.”

 Order on Motion to Strike. “The Scott survey affirmatively demonstrates the absence of customer confusion.”

Crystal Semiconductor Corp vs. Opti Inc. and TriTech Microelectronics Intl

Determine the relevant competitors for an audio chip for personal computers and the amount of defendant's sales that would have been made by the plaintiff had the defendant not sold an audio chip with a patent infringing feature.

 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviews Dr. Scott’s calculation of “but-for” market share for audio chipsets. Additionally, the Court concluded that “[Dr.] Scott’s testimony verified that the audio-chip market was not a uniform, completely elastic market.”

Mattel, Inc. vs. MGA Entertainment, Inc.; Carter Bryant v. Mattel, Inc.

Determine the relationship between the success of a line of fashion dolls and the sales of other related merchandise. Rebut counter-defendants' assessments of factors important to the success of certain fashion dolls and related merchandise.

Nellcor vs. Masimo; Masimo vs. Nellcor

Define the market for pulse oximetry products, identify the relevant competition, and determine the amount of sales that the plaintiff (defendant) would have made had the defendant (plaintiff) not sold pulse oximetry products with patent infringing features.