Inventors. Developers. Manufacturers. Suppliers. They are all innovators. From start ups to enterprise solution providers, they all have legal challenges as they push the boundaries of technology in their individual industries. At Gislason & Hunter, we help our technology clients address their unique challenges by providing legal experience and expertise in business structuring, licensing, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, finance, data privacy, employment issues, tax situations and regulatory for their success and protection.
Our accomplished attorneys bring substantial expertise to the Technology industry to deliver the very best in service and results.
Cases & Clients
Ownership of Source Code
Represented group of banks and financial organizations in a dispute on the ownership of the source code used to build their financial transaction platforms online.
CruiseCompete, LLC v. Smolinski & Assocs., Inc., et. al.
CruiseCompete, LLC v. Smolinski & Assocs., Inc., et. al.; Southern District of Iowa, Case No. 4:11-cv-00490. David Nelmark served as lead counsel in a case involving breach of contract, trademark infringement, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. A confidential settlement was reached after successfully resisting the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case or transfer venue. 859 F.Supp.2d 999 (S.D. Iowa 2012).
Represents clients in registering and managing trademark portfolio with over 600 trademarks; work includes trademark application, prosecution with examiners, trademark opposition proceedings, Section 8&15 Acknowledgements and Declarations, Section 8&9 Declarations and Renewals and trademark Cease and Desist notices and litigations.
Jury Ruled in Favor of Subcontractor Responsible for Deficiencies
A Dakota County jury ruled in favor of R. Stephen Tillitt’s general and electrical contractor following an eight day trial in 2015. The client’s customer was dissatisfied with the roof installed by the client’s subcontractor and with the performance of the solar collection system installed on top of the roof. Seven different expert witnesses testified as well as many fact witnesses. The Court and the jury vindicated Steve’s client’s work and materials and found the roofing subcontractor responsible for deficiencies in the roof system. Following the verdict, Steve’s client received the sums the customer had refused to pay for the project.
Technology Licensing Agreements
Represented a client in transactions involving Technology Licensing Agreements with various public universities in the U.S., Toll Manufacturing Agreements with custom manufacturers in the U.S. and foreign countries, patent applications, patent prosecutions, and trademark registrations in nine jurisdictions including the U.S., various countries in the E.U. through EPO, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Canada.
- What’s an Internship Program?
- Having a Gambler’s Outlook Could Help Entrepreneurs
- Minnesota Startups and Venture Capital Alternatives
- Deceptive Trade Practices in Minnesota
- Errors to Avoid to Build a Successful Business Online
- Business Planning for Longevity
- Planning an Exit Strategy for Minnesota Business Owners
- Navigate Complex Banking and Finance Matters With Confidence
- The Right Business Structure for Entrepreneurs
- Minnesota Manufacturers’ Optimism Rising
- Dissolving the Domestic Business Corporation in Minnesota