Brett M. Schuman

Brett M. Schuman is an experienced patent and trademark trial attorney and co-chair of Goodwin’s IP litigation practice. Lately, he has “been very good at … dodging these trials,” he said.

He defeated a hard-fought trademark infringement case in July by winning a summary judgment that cleared his client Raw Garden, a large cannabis farm and extract company, of infringing the several “Raw” trademarks owned by a company that sells “Raw” rolling papers. BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Inc., 2:19-cv-05216 (D. Ariz., filed Sept. 18, 2019).

The case was challenging because Schuman’s client cannot obtain trademarks on its products, which are illegal under federal law. Following a 9th Circuit precedent, the trial judge held that the two companies’ marks weren’t similar and that there had been no customer complaints, among other factors, he said. The case is now on appeal.

Schuman, who also co-chairs Goodwin’s cannabis practice, settled a very similar trademark dispute between his client, Kiva Brands, a leading maker of cannabis edibles, and Kiva Health Brands, which makes and sells health food products. Kiva Health Brands v. Kiva Brands Inc., 3:19-cv-03459 (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2019).

“There are different kinds of wins in this business, and in a trademark infringement case where the plaintiff holds a registration on my client’s name, my client is still out there,” he said. “My client is still doing exactly what it was doing before the two-and-a-half-year litigation odyssey.”

The one case he did try ended in a mistrial in Delaware federal court that helped fuel a resolution following a jury’s split verdict (in a case Schuman did not try) in East Texas. That verdict largely wrapped up the “big and complicated case” that had been in litigation for 10 years. TQ Delta LLC v. CommScope Holding Co. Inc., 2:21-cv-00310 (E.D. Tex., filed Aug. 13, 2021)

His client CommScope did end up hit with an $11 million verdict, but he and the client view that as a huge win because the plaintiff initially sought $70 million.

Another of Schuman’s cases is very large and very complicated but not yet over. He represents Anthony Levandowski, the former Google engineer hit with a $179 million award in a trade secrets arbitration. He reached a settlement in his subsequent bankruptcy that Levandowski reportedly required to pay Google only $30 million. It relied in part on an indemnity agreement he had from Uber. In re Levandowski, 20-302422 (Bankr. N.D. Cal., filed March 4, 2020).

But there’s a new snag. “The IRS and the Franchise Tax Board intervened and took the position that the settlement amount that Uber was paying to Google was taxable income to the [bankruptcy] estate,” Schuman said. “So we’re not quite done yet.”

— Don DeBenedictis