Thomas S. Kiddé

Partner

Thomas Kiddé is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Lewis Brisbois and a member of the Intellectual Property & Technology Practice. Mr. Kiddé has more than forty years of litigation experience and specializes in intellectual property litigation, prosecution and counseling. He has represented clients in the areas of trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, dilution, false advertising, patent infringement relating to utility and design patents, copyright infringement, claims involving the rights of privacy and publicity as well as matters under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

Representative cases include trade dress claims as to product configuration and color. Patent disputes pertaining to valves and pumps, telecommunications systems, mechanical and electro-mechanical locking mechanisms, exercise equipment, ladder systems, games of chance, electronic clock mechanisms for the hearing impaired, traffic delineators and barricades. Copyright disputes regarding photographic images, musical compositions,  websites, computer software, fine art as well as fabric and jewelry designs.

Mr. Kiddé’s litigation experience includes both jury and bench trials in the federal and state courts. He has appeared in all of the federal district courts in the State of California as well as the Northern District of Illinois and the Districts of Colorado, District of Columbia, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada and Ohio. He has argued before the Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and the Federal Circuits. He has also had trials before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in inter partes matters.

Mr. Kiddé’s practice also includes trademark prosecution and counseling including searching and clearance, for domestic and foreign trademark applications as well as copyright matters. He has also negotiated and prepared intellectual property agreements for trademarks, copyrights, technology transfers, music and television rights, publishing and distribution rights.

Mr. Kiddé is a member of the United States District Court’s Settlement Officer Panel for Trademark, Copyright and Patent matters.

Representative cases include:

  • Mr. Kiddé successfully represented a clothing manufacturer in an arbitration brought by the licensor of a trademark who maintained that the manufacturer had failed to adequately market the apparel items bearing the mark and unilaterally terminated the agreement and sought to recover the yearly license fees due through the end of the contract term.  The manufacturer counterclaimed asserting that the licensor had breached the agreement, prevented its performance and sought to recover all of the license fees it had paid prior to the termination.  The arbitrator found that the licensor had breached the agreement, prevented the manufacturer’s performance and awarded it the amount it had paid in license fees prior to the unwarranted termination as well as attorneys’ fees incurred in the arbitration. 
  • Mr. Kiddé successfully defended a restaurant chain in an action in federal court by its former owner and founder who alleged that the chain had improperly used her name after she had left the company in violation of her separation agreement and violated her right of publicity as well as constituted trademark infringement.  The use consisted of the founder’s name as part of the decorations on the walls of two restaurants and photographs of the founder in another restaurant.  The jury returned a unanimous verdict finding that there was no harm by the minimal use and no violation of her rights of publicity nor any trademark infringement.  A motion for attorneys’ fees is presently pending before the court.
  • Mr. Kiddé successfully defended a manufacturer of pool ladders and related equipment in a patent infringement suit in federal court in the District of Columbia brought by the owner a patent as to pool ladders.  In successive motions Mr. Kiddé successfully argued that the claims of the patent had to be construed in a limited manner and, when the court agreed, successfully moved on a summary judgment motion that there was no infringement.  Thereafter Mr. Kiddé successfully defended the trial court’s determination before the Federal Circuit.
  • In a patent infringement action against a manufacturer of television remote controls for televisions, Mr. Kiddé on cross examination of the plaintiff’s damages expert succeeded in having the court exclude the expert as lacking the requisite skill and expertise which resulted in a successful settlement for the client.
  • In a patent infringement action in a federal court in Maryland regarding a patent for an alarm clock for the hearing impaired, Mr. Kiddé was able to have the plaintiff’s damages expert admit that his calculations as to the alleged lost profits was faulty and the jury thereupon returned a verdict in which the award was about what defendants had offered in settlement before trial.
  • Mr. Kiddé was a member of the trial team in a false advertising action in federal court wherein the firm’s client asserted claims against a competitor in the tour industry as to prices and locations for their competing services.  The jury returned a verdict finding that the defendants had misled the public resulting in the entry of an injunction barring such activities.
  • Mr. Kiddé was a member of a trial team in a false advertising action in federal court by an automobile parts manufacturer against a competitor in which the firm represented the manufacturer in connection with the counterclaim brought by the competitor.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of the manufacturer on both its complaint as well as in defense of the counterclaim. 
     

Published Decisions

  • DoorKing, Inc. v. Sentex Systems, Inc., et al., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20483 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
  • Aero Products International, Inc. v. Intex Corp., et al, 64 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1772 (N.D. Ill.  2002)
  • Intex Recreation Corp. v. Metalast S.A., 400 F.Supp.2d 123 (D.D.C. 2003)
  • Intex Recreation Corp. v. Metalast SA, 245 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2003)

  • Intex Recreation Corp. v. Metalast SA, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10149 (D.D.C. 2005) and 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34945 (D.D.C. 2005)

  • C&C Imports v. Crosby, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110416 (C.D. Cal. 2008)

  • Pacific Information Resources, Inc. v. Simple Communications, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98943 (N.D. Cal. 2008)
  • Hillberry v. Wooden Teddy Bear, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11651 (D. Colo. 2009)
  • Impeva Labs, Inc. v. System Planning Corp., et al, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120011 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
  • Impeva Labs, Inc. v. System Planning Corp., et al, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4198 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
  • Lucky Break Wishbone Corp. v. Sterling Jewelers, et al., 2011 US Dist. LEXIS 110224 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2011)
  • Malch v. Dolan, et al., 2015 US Dist. LEXIS 85147 (C.D. Cal June 30, 2015) and 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 14542 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016); and 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125180 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2016)

Professional Presentations

TTAB Practice for Novices Forum, International Trademark Association, September, 1998

Admissions

  • State Bar Admissions
    • California
    • Idaho
  • United States Courts of Appeals
    • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States Supreme Court

Admissions

California

Idaho

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Unites States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

U.S. Supreme Court

Associations

  • Los Angeles County Bar Association
  • International Trademark Association

Education

Hastings College of the Law

Juris Doctor, 1974

Stanford University

Bachelor of Arts, 1971

arrow Back to Attorneys