The trial lawyers at Banys, P.C. have a long history of success in the most complex commercial disputes. From breach of contract, fraud, antitrust, trade secret theft and even landlord-tenant disputes, Banys, P.C. has the experience required to win.
 

Business Disputes

The trial lawyers at Banys, P.C. have a long history of success in the most complex commercial disputes. From breach of contract, fraud, antitrust, trade secret theft and even landlord-tenant disputes, Banys, P.C. has the experience required to win.

Examples include:

  • SAI v. Qualcomm: Banys, P.C. won a $12.5 million jury verdict for Santa Clara start-up SAI.  Mr. Banys proved to the jury that QUALCOMM breached its contract with SAI by failing to honor its obligations and refusing to pay SAI fairly for the work SAI had done;
  • Zebohead Automotive v. Gondogdu: Banys, P.C. represented a small automotive repair shop against a known commercial and residential slumlord who refused to honor his lease obligations. Mr. Banys won two separate bench trials against Gondogdu, winning a court order to repair the building and attorney fees for Zebohead;
  • Tsai v. Fox Ortega, Premier Cru: Banys, P.C. represented a wine buyer who had purchased over $800,000 worth of wine from Fox Ortega, who for years was running a Ponzi-style scheme selling wine futures.  Banys, P.C. was the only law firm to recover 100% of the money owed to its client, shortly before the scheme collapsed.  Mr. Ortega’s scheme was covered by the New York Times and Mr. Ortega later plead guilty to fraud;
  • Loo, et. al. v. Terrahash: In one of the first Bitcoin fraud cases in the country, Banys, P.C. obtained judgment in favor of multiple clients defrauded by Tarandeep Gill, a.k.a. Amir Khan and his Terehash company. Mr. Gill had set up a scheme to sell Bitcoin mining equipment, collected money, and never intended to deliver.

Intellectual Property

Banys, P.C. is well known for helping inventors and small companies stand up to large corporations that think they can steal hard-won technology and get away with it.  No company is too large or too powerful for Banys, P.C. to take on. In fact, Banys, P.C. has represented clients against nearly every powerful technology company on earth.

The trial lawyers at Banys, P.C. have fought hundreds of patent infringers and helped bring them to justice.  Banys, P.C. prides itself on taking meritorious cases and winning, despite tough odds.  And, Banys P.C. has fought for small companies that were wrongly accused of patent infringement, helping them avoid paying unnecessary settlements.

Patent Infringement Examples include:

  • Freeny v. Murphy Oil: Won a $9.25 million jury verdict for three brothers in patent infringement case involving automated synchronous price and advertising technology. Mr. Banys proved to the jury that Murphy Oil had knowingly infringed the Freenys Brothers’ patents;
  • Resource International v. Alradco: Represented Defendant radiator manufacturer in a dubious patent infringement suit. Banys convinced the plaintiff to drop the case;
  • InNova Patent Licensing, LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent Holdings, Inc. et al: Represented InNova in dozens of patent infringement actions against major corporations in a case involving e-mail spam filtering technology. Every case resolved favorably for InNova;
  • Prust v. Apple: Represented Mr. Prust in a willful patent infringement case against Apple. Mr. Banys resolved the case favorably in the early stages of litigation.

In addition, Banys, P.C. helps small companies obtain trademarks and defend them from infringers. And Banys, P.C. has lower-cost options to help small businesses get trademark protection they can afford.

Trademark Examples include:

  • Tactica, Krav Maga Institute: Banys, P.C. obtained core brand trademarks for Tactica, the leading Krav Maga and fitness training company in the United States;
  • Sigona’s Farmers Market: Banys, P.C. obtained multiple trademarks for family-owned grocer Sigona’s;
  • Armature Systems v. Armature Solutions: Banys, P.C. represents Silicon Valley start-up Armature Systems in a trademark interference action against Armature Solutions.

commercial-litigation