Houston Contingent Fee Patent Litigation Attorneys
Speak to Our Experienced Lawyers! Call (832) 981-6114 Today.
EP understands that 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. EP understands these concerns and is positioned to meet those objectives by providing clients with an alternative to traditional hourly fee arrangements.
For clients that seek an alternative to traditional fee arrangements or simply can’t afford to pay an attorney by the hour, EP offers contingent fee, reduced hourly and contingency fee, and other result-oriented fee structures. Over the past 25 years, the founding lawyers of EP have devoted a substantial portion of their practice to successfully representing clients on a contingency fee basis. We have represented independent inventors and small companies who lack the resources to litigate or license their intellectual property against infringers. In addition, we are also willing to represent large companies that seek 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 EP is able to offer. Each contingent fee arrangement will set forth the client’s obligation to pay all, a portion, or none of the case expenses.
In addition to a contingent fee option, EP has successfully worked with clients by offering patent litigation and patent enforcement legal services on a mixed hourly and contingency fee arrangement, flat-fee arrangement, and other result-oriented arrangements. In each instance, EP strives to structure a fee agreement that is fair and reasonable to the clients and the firm.
Its attorneys have experience in litigating patent infringement lawsuits involving a wide variety of technologies. These areas include smartphones and software, base stations and other telecommunication equipment, caller identification, vision and facial recognition and monitoring systems, license plate recognition, vehicle collision warning and avoidance systems, music identification, computer accessories, wireless navigation and mapping systems, advanced process control, chip fabrication, chemical compositions, cosmetic formulations, contact lens, boat design, catalysts, oil field equipment, tertiary oil recovery systems, offshore platforms, medical devices, pagers, laser levels, fasteners, “distance to the pin” determination on a golf course, and ski poles to name a few.
Below is a sample of contingent fee litigations and technology areas that the firm’s attorneys have handled:
- Adrain v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al – automobile forward collision warning and image recognition
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc. – smartphones/telecommunications
- InSyst, Ltd. v. Applied Materials, Inc., et al. – advanced process control
- Jimmy J. Fulks v. Crownline Boats, Inc. – boat stringer design
- Levine v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al – smartphones/telecommunications
- Morris Reese v. Aastra Telecom U.S., Inc., et al – cell phones/telecommunications
- Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Steven J. Orosz, Jr. and Charles F. Schroeder.
- Tune Hunter, Inc. v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al – music identification software
- Optimal Recreation Solutions, LLP, d/b/a/ Optimal Golf Solutions