Accountability is important to our civil justice system. 

Cuker Interactive - $12.4 Million Jury Verdict

Walmart v. Cuker Interactive, LLC. W.D. Ark. No. 5:14-cv-5262-TLB. 

After two weeks of a jury trial in federal court in Fayetteville, Arkansas, a unanimous jury returned a $12.4 million dollar verdict in favor of our client, Cuker Interactive, LLC on claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and computer coding know-how. The case began with a breach of contract claim filed by Walmart in the retailer’s hometown of Bentonville, Arkansas. The original contract was for Cuker to redesign and bring cutting-edge "responsive" website technology to a multi-million dollar grocery website operated by Walmart's division in the United Kingdom known as ASDA. Cuker was required to design only 13 templates but bent under extreme pressure by Walmart's project managers to produce nearly 60 templates. Several witnesses testified that Walmart's employee secretly downloaded computer code while at Cuker's headquarters without authority and later sent much of Cuker's trade secrets to various locations across the globe, including India for quick insertion into training programs. The jury took less than one full day to return a verdict finding Walmart's behavior constituted "willful and malicious" trade secret misappropriation.  

Arkbusiness.jpg Reporting

"Last month a federal jury in Fayetteville ordered Wal-Mart to pay $12.4 million for damages that included willful and malicious misappropriation of Cuker's confidential information and trade secrets. The verdict didn't end the dispute. Last week, one of Cuker's attorneys, Mark M. Henry of Fayetteville, asked the judge to prevent Wal-Mart from using Cuker's code in any of its websites. Henry is also seeking sanctions against Wal-Mart's attorneys for what he alleges was abuse of the discovery process."

Canadian toymakers cleared

Redwoodventures Ltd. v Irwin RX Ltd., W.D. Ark. No. 5:15-cv-5174-TLB.

Plaintiffs Redwoodventures Ltd. filed this trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement case against our clients - the Canadian toy producers, Irwin RX, Ltd. In defending the case for Irwin, we discovered serious problems with plaintiff Redwoodventures Ltd.'s intellectual property claims. The plaintiff claimed trade dress in a product they had not used, it claimed trademark rights using dates well prior to when any actual sales occurred, and there were numerous other problems with the copyright applications. As a result of these revelations, our client Irwin RX filed and aggressively advanced many counterclaims and sought a determination the rights were invalid or unenforceable. Our clients denied all wrongdoing and were preparing for trial; however, prior to trial, Redwoodventures dismissed its entire case. The plaintiff received no payment from our clients and Redwoodventures released our clients from any infringement allegations or claims.

3D Magic Pens

Our client produced a children's learning tool product known as 3D Magic. Its competitor filed suit in federal court and threatened not only our clients but also used the case to disrupt our client's previously good connections to Walmart. 

Trade Dress Infringement - Rotoworks of New Zealand

Rotoworks Int’l Ltd. v. Grassworks USA, LLC, W.D. Ark., No. 07-CV-5009

After a weeklong trial in Fayetteville Federal District Court, a jury determined that the defendant engaged in a bait-and-switch operation in this trademark infringement case. Our firm represented the New Zealand trademark owner, Rotoworks Int’l Ltd. The defendant, Grassworks USA, would advertise the New Zealand manufactured equipment but then ship a knock-off version to the customer. A jury returned a verdict of $375,000 for intentional trademark infringement and the court additionally awarded $191,699 in attorneys’ fees.


Can we get a calculator?

This is the note from the jury foreman during deliberations in this case. Usually that is a good sign for a plaintiff in any jury trial, and it was in this instance.

Watley Seed Company - Consent Judgment of $616,000

Watley Seed Co. v. Bronco Seed Co., et al., N.D. Tex., No. 10-CV-271-C

Our firm secured consent judgments and settlement agreements for PVP infringement claims totaling $616,000 against 17 Texas defendants engaged in the sale, purchase, or conditioning of proprietary TAM 112 hard red winter wheat seed. The case began against two producers and a seed conditioner, but in the course of discovery it was determined the seed conditioner facilitated a far larger network of unauthorized activity in a local community. We initiated the case by seeking and receiving a TRO that permitted, with the aid of federal marshals, a surprise seizure of critical evidence from the business at the center of the piracy network.


Texas A&M plant variety infringed

"We discovered a surprisingly large amount of the TAM 112 variety was being traded among producers without any royalty being paid, and without good quality control. . . a good portion of the royalty dollars paid when you buy seed legally are sent back to Texas A&M University System's wheat programs for continued research into making new, better varieties of wheat that benefit both wheat producers and consumers in Texas and beyond," Watley says.

Mark Henry
Television show producers prevail

Garrison, et al. v. Jones T.V., et al.Washington Co., Ark.No. CV-11-2388-4

Henry Law Firm defended Hollywood producers in a lawsuit targeting the television show Last Shot with Judge Gunn. As part of our defense to these claims, we filed a summary judgment motion to dismiss the case on many theories including First Amendment and intellectual property grounds. After a few depositions of the plaintiffs, counsel for the plaintiffs nonsuited their case without any settlement or recovery.


Case Dismissed. 

Our clients were the producer of a progressive television show that highlighted the benefits of drug courts as a creative way for people to avoid prison and to get their lives back on track. In this case, several drug court participants tried to cash in on the show's popularity to no avail.

Mark Henry
Tele-radiology computer code case

Southeast X-Ray, Inc., et al. v. Spears, et al., W.D. Ark., No. 13-CV-2026-PKH

Our firm defended against claims of copyright infringement and trade secret theft in a case involving teleradiology and X-Ray imaging software. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed to have authored a computer software program that was, in actuality, mostly built using publicly available, open-source computer code. Yet the plaintiffs claimed exclusive authorship and sued a former colleague. At the preliminary injunction hearing in the federal district court in Fort Smith, Arkansas, the plaintiff claimed, in addition to exclusive authorship, the material was a trade secret eligible for legal protection under the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act. Our computer expert used his wireless connection to the Internet and his laptop computer to demonstrate for the Court exactly why the plaintiff's claims were not accurate and even navigated to the plaintiff's own computer servers which were not secure. As a result, we defeated plaintiffs’ efforts to secure preliminary injunction and reached successful resolution.


Live Demo

Our computer expert was able to show in a live courtroom demonstration how easy it was to access the plaintiff's so-called "secret" database without any password. He was able to obtain easily the very information the plaintiff claimed was secret, which was important to the Court's decision to deny plaintiff relief at the preliminary injunction hearing. 

Mark Henry
$2.5 Million Judgment - Patented Clearfield Rice Seed

BASF v. Arnold, et al., E.D. Ark., No. 04-CV-0311

In this case, our firm secured a $2.5 million consent judgment for willful patent infringement against more than twenty co-defendants in a case involving patented traits in rice seed. The settlement allowed all producers to continue using the product according to stringent guidelines of quality control to ensure the integrity of the technology remained at peak performance.

Mark Henry
S.A. Walls - Patent Ruled Invalid

Jones v. Walls, et al., N.D. Okla., No. 07-CV-107-GKF-PJC

We defended against patent infringement claims having original demand against our client of $16,000,000. In connection with a multi-day jury trial, we invalidated the underlying patent using admissions of inventor, Jones, during his trial testimony. 

On directed verdict, the Court made specific factual finding of inequitable conduct on the part of the inventor, Mr. Jones, and ruled the patent invalid pursuant to Secs. 102 and 103. After situating earlier-stated counterclaims for fraud in the procurement of the patent and following directed verdict, the firm advanced the counterclaims on theory of Handgards and Walker-Process (Sham Litigation) anti-trust liability. Before the case was given to the jury on these sham litigation counterclaims, Jones settled in our client’s favor by executing a consent judgment of $200,000 payable to our client, S.A. Walls, to help recoup cost to defend the baseless suit.


Crooked Stirrups

These stirrups survived a patent infringement lawsuit and the plaintiff in the case paid our attorneys' fees for a frivolous case. S.A. Walls is a craftsman who had trust in the legal system to confirm that he did not infringe. 

Mark Henry