Call (516) 234-0789
Representative Matters
Prior to founding Yomtobian Law P.C., Alan Yomtobian assisted in the representation of clients in significant intellectual property matters across federal district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Representative prior experience includes:
Patent Enforcement — Gesture-Based Mobile Technology
Gesture Technology Partners, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Case No. 4:22-cv-04806 (N.D. Cal., transferred from W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00121-ADA)
Patent enforcement action involving gesture-based smartphone interface technology against Apple Inc., with associated PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings.
Gesture Technology Partners, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
Case No. 2:21-cv-19234-JMV-MA (D.N.J.)
Gesture Technology Partners, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC
Case No. 1:24-cv-09422 (N.D. Ill.)
Apple, Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, Inc.
IPR2021-00922; CAFC No. 23-1463
Inter partes review and Federal Circuit appeal concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079.
Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 (Samsung)
90/014,901; CAFC No. 25-1075
USPTO reexamination and Federal Circuit appeal.
Patent Enforcement — Dynamic Password / Multifactor Authentication
Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00063 (E.D. Tex.)
Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00210-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)
Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Experian Information Services, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00066 (E.D. Tex.)
Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00212-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)
Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. The Charles Schwab Corporation and Charles Schwab Bank SSB, Case No. 2:23-cv-00064 (E.D. Tex.)
Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425, U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658
Patent Enforcement — VoIP / Enterprise Communications Technology
Assisted in a coordinated enforcement campaign on behalf of Estech Systems IP LLC involving Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) patents against the following defendants:
Estech v. 3CX USA Corp. and 3CX LTD. (M.D. Fla.)
Estech v. 8X8, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02522 (N.D. Cal.)
Estech v. Dialpad, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02524 (N.D. Cal.)
Estech v. Freshworks Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02525 (N.D. Cal.)
Estech v. Intermedia.net, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02526 (N.D. Cal.)
Estech v. NetFortris Corporation and Sangoma Technologies Corp., Case No. 2:24-00285 (E.D. Tex.)
Estech v. Ooma International Operations, LLC et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02527 (N.D. Cal.)
Estech v. Polycom, Inc. and Plantronics, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-00876 (W.D. Tex.)
Estech v. ZOOM Video Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02528 (N.D. Cal.)
Estech v. Zultys, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02529 (N.D. Cal.)
Patent Enforcement — Broadcast Signal Processing
Digital Broadcasting Solutions LLC v. Dish Network Corporation and DISH Technologies L.L.C.
Case No. 23-02946-SBP (D. Colo.) | U.S. Patent Nos. 8,929,710 and 9,538,122
New York IP Litigation
Twin Beauty LLC v. NR Interactive LLC et al.
Case No. 1:24-cv-7412 (E.D.N.Y.) | Copyright infringement
Sanders Collection Inc. v. Dbest Products, Inc.
Case No. 1:24-cv-10045 (S.D.N.Y.) | Patent infringement
The Webstaurant Store, LLC v. Buy Supply, Corp. et al.
Case No. 1:25-cv-509 (E.D.N.Y.) | Copyright Infringement
Weather Brands LLC v. Blue Mineral LLC et al.
Case No. 1:25-cv-2423 (S.D.N.Y.) | Trademark Infringement
Trademark Opposition — Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Mazall, Inc. v. MB Home Design Corp.
Opposition No. 91301189 (TTAB, 2025)
Represented defendant in a trademark opposition proceeding before the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The opposition was dismissed with prejudice within approximately 75 days of institution, securing a permanent resolution in the client's favor. The client, an emerging jewelry brand with a six-figure social media following, was able to secure trademark rights and continue operating its online business without interruption. The matter was resolved significantly faster and more cost-effectively than competing counsel had represented was possible.