Brian P. McGraw

Partner

Brian McGraw is an intellectual property and commercial litigator that helps clients resolve high stakes, “bet the company” litigation. Brian enforces and defends the rights of clients in intellectual property disputes, including primarily in patent, trademark, and copyright infringement litigation. Brian has worked with a variety of technologies within his patent infringement cases and has handled a number of matters in a multitude of industries involving trade dress, false advertising, unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation, violations of the publicity and privacy rights, and disputes over the bad faith use and registration of domain names. In addition, he advises business clients on contract disputes and other complex commercial litigation.

Brian’s clients include a broad range of businesses, from Fortune 10 companies to medium-sized companies to individual business owners. He also works with artists, musicians, professional athletes, and other creators, aggressively protecting their interests in both the courtroom and at the negotiation table. He brings a practical, business-centered perspective to solving his clients’ disputes, helping them reach successful resolutions while balancing the significant costs of high stakes litigation.

Corporate and individual clients alike appreciate Brian’s ability to distill complex legal and business issues into clear and simple concepts that juries (and clients) can understand and process. Clients depend on him to design – and execute – winning strategies that help them achieve their objectives in and out of the court room. Brian’s work spans across the country, as he has argued and tried cases in federal courts throughout the country. Recent trial victories include the successful defense of trademark infringement and unfair competition claims for over $90 million brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware related to the U.S. inland river cruising industry; the successful prosecution of a patent infringement case involving farming equipment technology in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (obtaining a jury verdict of just over $11 million); and the successful prosecution of a patent infringement case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware involving electric hydrofoil surfboard technology (obtaining a jury verdict of just over $1.3 million).

Before devoting most of his work time in intellectual property and commercial litigation, Brian worked in trademark and copyright prosecution and commercial transactions involving IP rights, helping intellectual property rights holders with brand development and clearance, trademark registration in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the licensing and sale of intellectual property rights. He has worked on number of high value commercial transactions. His prior experience on the business side of things gives him a unique, business and creative-oriented perspective and approach to his litigation matters. Brian also currently sits on the Board of Directors of Kentucky to the World, an organization dedicated to enhancing the intellectual reputation of Kentucky, its people, and its culture.

Brian P. McGraw Experience

Practice Area

Litigation

Representative Matters

Phillips 66 Company v. Garfield-66, LLC (U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri). Represented Phillips 66 as plaintiff in connection with a case for trademark infringement and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act. Successfully obtained a judgment and permanent injunction against the defendant and further obtained an award of its attorneys’ fees in connection with the matter. Successfully represented the plaintiff in the subsequent collection action and recovered all of the plaintiff’s fees.

BDT Products, Inc. et al v. Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, LLP (Fayette County Circuit Court, Kentucky Court of Appeals). Represented defendant, a law firm who represented a printer manufacturer in connection with a long-standing trade secret misappropriation case in federal court in Kentucky, in the subsequent malpractice action. Obtained summary judgment in favor of the law firm, successfully avoiding a multi-million dollar claim asserted by the former client. Judgment was affirmed on appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

KCH Services, Inc. v. Vanaire, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky). Represented plaintiff, KCH Services, a manufacturer and distributor of industrial vacuum equipment, in connection with a claim for trade secret misappropriation based on a former employee taking certain computer software to a competitor and the competitor subsequently raiding the plaintiff’s employees. Obtained a favorable settlement following the plaintiff’s presentation of its case at trial. Prior to trial, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of the defendant’s spoliation of evidence during the case.

Lauren Eirk Enterprises, LLC v. Suzanne Bryant-Cunha (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky). Represented individual business owner defendant, who was a resident of California, in connection with a trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting case brought in federal court in Kentucky. Obtained dismissal in favor of client on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction where the plaintiff argued personal jurisdiction existed based on the defendant’s operation of a website and based on other alleged internet activities of the defendant.

Kazimierz Leja and Zofia Leja v. Schmidt Manufacturing et. al. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey). Represented Sypris Technologies as a third party defendant and obtained dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction over the client in New Jersey.

CMCO Mortgage, LLC v. Peoples, Inc. and Aaron Hill (Jefferson County Circuit Court). Represented plaintiff, mortgage banking and brokerage service, in connection with a trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, breach of confidentiality, breach of restrictive covenant, and employee raiding case brought against former employee and competitor. Obtained favorable settlement from competitor defendant and obtained judgment and permanent injunction against individual defendant.

Better than Diamond, LLC v. C3 Jewelry, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia). Represented plaintiff, synthetic diamond manufacturer, against a competitor in a case for false advertising under the Lanham Act. The case settled with a consent judgment and injunction entering against the defendant.

Donna Sharp, Inc. v. American Hometex (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky). Represented plaintiff, a designer and distributor of quilts, against a competitor in a case for copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act. Case settled favorably and was dismissed after payment of settlement proceeds by the defendant.

Scholz Design, Inc. v. Lawrence Tallent (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky). Represented individual defendant accused of copyright infringement associated with architectural design of house. Obtained favorable settlement following discovery.

iLor LLC v. Google, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky). Represented Google in connection with defending against patent infringement claims asserted against it over the “Google Notebook” feature. Defended against motion for preliminary injunction and obtained summary judgment of non-infringement based on Markman interpretation. Summary judgment was upheld by the Federal Circuit.

HMS American Queen Steamboat Company v. American Cruise Lines (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board). Represented HMS in connection with trademark opposition proceedings asserted against its primary competitor. Successfully obtained summary judgment on the grounds that the opposed mark was generic or descriptive.

Alimak Hek, Inc. v. Richard Wheat (WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center). Represented one of the world’s largest manufacturers and distributors of industrial elevators and construction hoists in connection with domain name cybersquatting dispute. Obtained a judgment in favor of client and order transferring disputed domain name to the client.

Re-Logic, Inc. v. Whoisguard, Inc./Kenneth Buhrs (WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center). Represented well-known international video game designer and creator in connection with domain name cybersquatting dispute. Obtained a judgment in favor of client and order transferring disputed domain name to the client.

Admissions

Kentucky

Illinois

U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

U.S. Court of Federal Claims

U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois

U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan

Education

The John Marshall Law School, L.L.M. Intellectual Property 2003

The John Marshall Law School, J.D. 2002

Miami University, B.A. Political Science 1999

Honors & Awards

Kentucky Super Lawyers, 2023, Intellectual Property and Commercial Litigation

Kentucky Super Lawyers®, Kentucky Rising Stars®, intellectual property, 2013 – 2017

Experienced attorneys with a focus on protecting cutting edge technology

From scientists and engineers to experienced deal makers and litigators, the attorneys at Gray Ice Higdon represent a wide variety of backgrounds and experience levels to achieve your business goals.

Meet our Attorneys

Practices

Intellectual Property Law

Litigation

Business Law

3939 Shelbyville Road

Suite 201

Louisville Kentucky 40207

(502)-677-4729