Victor H. Polk, Jr.

focuses his practice on the trial of complex business and intellectual property disputes. He is experienced in dealing with all types of intellectual property disputes, including cases involving patents, copyrights, trademarks, licensing agreements and trade secrets. He has tried a number of cases in jury and bench trials and arbitrations.

Vic's patent cases have involved a wide range of technologies, including: cellular phones [Potter Voice v. Samsung (voice recognition database search technology), Flatworld v. Samsung (user interface "fling" functionality), Cellport v. Samsung (selector for network communications channels) and Mobile Telecom Tech v. Samsung (methods for processing data messages between a network operations center and a mobile device)]; computer user interfaces (CDD v. Samsung); liquid crystal display monitors (CEA v. ViewSonic and Guardian Industries v. ViewSonic); aerosol spray plume analyzers (Proveris Scientific v. Innova Systems); electronic patient diaries (PHT v. CRF); manifold valve for use with air mattress (Select Comfort v. Tempur-Pedic); visco-elastic foam mattresses and pillows (Tempur-Pedic v. Simmons and Tempur-Pedic v. Sealy); and sporting goods (Warrior Lacrosse v. Brine).

Vic also handles many trademark, copyright and trade secret cases. His copyright cases regularly deal with software issues (e.g., Escher v. AnPost), but also involve a wide variety of other issues, including summarizing newspaper articles (e.g., Nihon Keizai Shimbun v. Comline Business Data, Inc.) and fabric designs (e.g., Eastern Accents v. Ashley Furniture). Vic's trademark cases have run the gamut from traditional likelihood of confusion issues (e.g., Operation ABLE of Greater Boston v. National Able Network, Inc. and Equine Technologies, Inc. v. Equitechnology, Inc.) to issues of genericness (e.g., Boston Duck Tours v. Super Duck Tours) and geographic misdescriptiveness (e.g., Japan Telecom v. Japan Telecom America).

Vic has also tried and handled a series of disputes concerning the licensing of software and patents. These included ICAM v. Parametric Technology Corporation (software license), Fidelity Investments v. Actuate Corporation (software license), Acer Snowmec v. MOH (license of indoor snowmaking technology patents) and ENPAR Technologies Inc. v. Biosource, Inc. (license of water purification patent).

Vic also continues to work with various private equity clients and their portfolio companies. He has tried cases including claimed breaches of fiduciary duties, enforcement of letters of intent, exclusivity agreements and post-closing purchase price adjustments.

Vic is an active member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Co-Chair of the Copyright Committee of the Boston Patent Law Association, and was the Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation Committee of the Boston Bar Association. He has frequently been quoted on his views of developments in the law as it pertains to the Internet, including in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Associated Press and The Boston Globe.