For clients seeking an alternative to traditional fee arrangements or who simply can’t afford to pay an attorney by the hour, TPLF handles certain cases on a contingent fee, reduced hourly and contingency fee, and other result-oriented fee structures.
Representation on a Contingency Fee Basis
Over the past 25 years, the founding lawyer of The Polasek Law Firm has devoted a substantial portion of his practice to representing clients on a contingency fee basis in patent litigation and patent licensing.
Ted has represented independent inventors and small companies who lack the resources to litigate or license their intellectual property against infringers.
The firm has clients worldwide and its lawyers have litigated cases across the United States.
TPLF is also willing to represent larger companies seeking a more cost-effective way to enforce their intellectual property on a results-oriented basis.
Just as every client is unique, so are the fee arrangements that The Polasek Law Firm can offer.
Each contingent fee arrangement will set forth the client’s obligation to pay all, a portion, or none of the case expenses.
Mixed Contingency Fee Agreements and Reduced Hourly Rates
The attorneys at The Polasek Law Firm understand few companies and individuals have open pocketbooks.
Most litigants capable of paying hourly fees expect attorneys to be cost-conscious and efficient, yet provide highly effective representation.
TPLF understands these concerns and is positioned to meet those objectives by providing clients with an alternative to traditional hourly fee arrangements, such as contingent fee patent litigation.
In addition to a contingency fee option, The Polasek Law Firm offers patent litigation and patent licensing representation on a mixed hourly and contingency fee arrangement, flat-fee arrangement, and other result-oriented arrangements.
In each instance, their law firm strives to structure a fee agreement that is fair and reasonable to the clients and the firm.
The firm’s founder has also handled trade secret cases on a contingency fee.
Technology Areas of some of our Patent Lawsuits
These technologies include:
- Smartphones, computers, tablets and software
- Base stations and other telecommunication equipment
- Caller identification systems and processes
- Vision, facial recognition, and monitoring systems
- License plate recognition
- Vehicle collision warning and avoidance systems
- Automotive parts
- Remote control systems involving cell phones, laptops and tablets
- Music identification
- Computer accessories
- Wireless navigation and mapping systems
- Advanced process control
- Chip fabrication
- Chemical compositions
- Cosmetic formulations
- Boat design
- Oil field equipment
- Tertiary oil recovery systems
- Offshore platforms
- Medical devices
- Laser levels
- Smoking pipes design used for tobacco and cannabis
- Fitness devices and systems
- Distance to the pin determination on a golf course
- Ski poles
Case Result Examples
Representative contingent fee litigations that the firm’s attorneys have handled. For many of these clients, the firm’s attorneys represented these clients in multiple patent infringement lawsuits.
- Alfred B. Levine v. Casio America, Inc., et al. smartphones/telecommunications
- Alfred B. Levine v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al smartphones/telecommunications
- Amazon.com Inc. v. Corydoras Technologies, LLC tablet devices
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc. communication devices
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Huawei Device Co., Ltd. communication devices
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al. communication devices
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC communication devices
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. communication devices
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. ZTE Corporation and ZTE USA communication devices
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al. communication devices
- Fat Statz, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al fitness devices and systems
- InSyst, Ltd. v. Applied Materials, Inc., et al. advanced process control
- Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Steven J. Orosz, Jr. and Charles F. Schroeder laser levels
- Jimmy J. Fulks v. Chris Craft Corporation boat stringer design
- Jimmy J. Fulks v. Crownline Boats, Inc. boat stringer design
- Jimmy J. Fulks v. Marinemax TX, L.P., et al. boat stringer design
- John B. Adrain v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. image recognition and automobile forward-collision warning
- John B. Adrain v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al image recognition and automobile forward-collision warning
- John B. Adrain v. Panasonic Corporation of North America image recognition and automobile forward-collision warning
- John B. Adrain v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. image recognition and automobile forward-collision warning
- John B. Adrain v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., et al. image recognition and automobile forward-collision warning
- Morris Reese v. Aastra Telecom U.S., Inc., et al cell phones/telecommunications
- Optimal Recreation Solutions, LLP, d/b/a/ Optimal Golf Solutions distance to the pin determination systems using GPS
- Tune Hunter, Inc. v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al music identification software