Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that 80 lawyers are recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America, with ten receiving this honor for the first time. Additionally, 22 Hinshaw lawyers are included in The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that New York attorney Mohamed F. Sweify has been admitted to the List of Arbitrators of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that David Levitt has been elected to serve on the Decalogue Society of Lawyers' Board of Managers. He was officially inducted at the organization’s 91st Annual Installation and Awards Dinner on July 31, 2025.

Hinshaw attorneys David Levitt, Thaddeus Juilfs, and Kate Scolaro recently authored an article published in the latest edition of the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal. The article examines the implications of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that may expand the scope of copyright infringement claims.

Hinshaw's Russ Klingaman presented at the virtual Integrated Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance (iCNS) Conference. The conference is widely recognized as the premier international aviation educational event addressing technology and policy advances in digital research, development, and implementation programs for the global aerospace community.

Hinshaw's David Levitt—a partner in the firm's Chicago office—authored an article titled "GDPR and the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act." Published in DRI's In-House Defense Quarterly, the article discusses whether, and how likely, an American company with no assets or facilities in the European Union (EU) is to be subject to penalties under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Hinshaw attorneys Jane Schlicht will serve as program chair and presenter for a Wisconsin Bar Association seminar titled "Drafting More Effective Contracts 2022," on January 14, 2022. Hinshaw's Michael Weis and Connie Meyer will also be part of the event faculty. The seminar will provide insight into issues that can arise during the contract negotiation and construction process, and how to create strong, enforceable contracts.

Milwaukee-based partner Russ Klingaman—who focuses his practice at Hinshaw in the areas of aviation, intellectual property, and business law—will present "The Wright Brothers v. Glenn Curtiss," on November 13, 2019 for the Mitchell Gallery of Flight aviation museum at Milwaukee's Mitchell International Airport. Klingaman will discuss the Wright brothers' "Flying Machine" patent and its impact on world history.

Hinshaw's Russ Klingaman will present "Wrights v. Curtiss: The Patent Wars" at the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) AirVenture Museum in Oshkosh, Wisconsin on July 22, 2019, and again on July 27. Klingaman, who has done extensive research on the topic, will discuss the Wright brothers' "Flying Machine" patent and its impact on world history.

New York-based attorney Mohamed F. Sweify, chair of the Egypt Chapter of the New York State Bar Association's (NYSBA) International Section, and past chair of NYSBA’s International Dispute Resolution Committee, will participate in a virtual CLE panel titled "Nuances of Intellectual Property & Tech-Related Disputes Before WIPO" on August 20, 2025.

A group of Hinshaw attorneys—Russ Klingaman, David Levitt, Roger Masson, and Jane Schlicht—will present as part of the State Bar of Wisconsin's virtual conference on January 12, 2021. Collectively, their session will explore intellectual property protection considerations. Summaries of their individual presentations are below.

Cassidy Chivers, a San Francisco-based partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, is part of the faculty of a Practising Law Institute (PLI) Program titled, "Understanding the Intellectual Property License 2018." Chivers will present "Ethical Issues on Licensing" on Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. Pacific.

On December 27, 2020, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act) was signed into law as part of the COVID-19 stimulus relief and government-funding bill. The CASE Act revises the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., and establishes a Copyright Claims Board (CCB) within the U.S. Copyright Office to adjudicate copyright disputes of $30,000 or less in total damages.

In Ritter v. Farrow, 2018 AP 1518 (WI S. Ct. 2/23/21), the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed Wisconsin trademark law in the context of the sale of a resort management business. Applying the principle that trademarks and their associated good will pass with the sale of a business, the Court found that the defendant purchasers of the resort management business had in fact acquired the trademarks at issue. The facts and outcome of this case illustrate how important it is for business owners to understand what intellectual property they own, the steps they should take to protect those rights, and in the event of a sale of assets associated with the business, how important attention to detail is to ensure the intent of the parties is actually accomplished.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on February 22, in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. limits the ability of a U.S. patent to cover infringing activity abroad. In particular, the Court held that a single component of a patented invention, shipped abroad to be combined with the other components of the patented invention, cannot "ever constitute a 'substantial portion' [of the components]" (emphasis added) for purposes of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). In so ruling, the Court overruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had held that a single component can be a "substantial portion" if it is a sufficiently important part of the invention. Promega v. Life Technologies (2014). While Life Technologies arose in the context of selling a commodity component, the Court's holding is not limited to commodity components.

Donald W. Fohrman and Associates, LTD. v. Marc D. Alberts, P.C., 2014 IL App (1st) 123351

Gunn v. Minton, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2013 WL 610193 (February 20, 2013) Brief SummaryIn a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state courts have jurisdiction to resolve state legal malpractice actions even if the determination of the malpractice claim requires resolution of a disputed federal patent question. This decision effectively overrules the Federal Circuit’s prior case law in Air Measurement Technologies, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 504 F. 3d 1262 (2007) and Immunocept, LLC v. Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, 504 F. 3d 1281 (2007). Although the Supreme Court did not expressly rule out the possibility of federal jurisdiction in these cases, it did suggest that all but the rarest patent malpractice cases belong in state court.Complete SummaryGunn previously represented Vernon Minton in prior patent infringement litigation. In that underlying litigation, however, the district court declared Minton’s patent invalid because he had placed it “on sale” more than one year prior to filing his application. Minton later determined that he may have prevailed under the “experimental use” exception to the on-sale bar, but that Gunn was allegedly negligent in failing to advise him of that available argument. Minton then sued Gunn for legal malpractice in Texas state court. After losing in state court, however, Minton requested that the case be sent to federal court based upon 28 U. S. C. § 1338(a)’s provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction over any case “arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents.” The Texas Supreme Court agreed with Minton and found that because Section 1338(a) provided exclusive jurisdiction for claims relating to patents, the state court lacked jurisdiction over the state law legal malpractice action against Gunn. Gunn then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to address the scope of federal “arising under” jurisdiction.

Download the hardcopy newsletter: The Professional Line - May 2011