St. Louis Attorney Paul Madock

Paul Maddock

Of Counsel | Attorney

Toll Free: 800-721-2519
Fax: 314-721-0905

8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
COntact CD&L for a free consultation

Meet Paul Maddock

Mr. Maddock practices all aspects of intellectual property litigation, including patent, trademark, copyright, theft of trade secrets and unfair competition, with an emphasis on patent and trademark litigation.

Mr. Maddock is a member of the Missouri Bar, Illinois State Bar, and the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis.

Education

  • University of Kansas S., Chemical Engineering, 1985
  • Saint Louis University School of Law D., 1993, magna cum laude

Areas of Focus

  • Litigation
    • Patent
    • Trademark
    • Copyright
    • Trade Secrets
    • Unfair Competition

Bar Information

  • Missouri, Admitted 1997
  • Illinois, Admitted 1993
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office, Admitted 1993

Federal Court Admissions

  • United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Admitted 1994
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Admitted 1996
  • United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Admitted 2008
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Admitted 2012

Representative Cases

  • Insituform Technologies, Inc. et al v. AMerik Supplies, Inc. et al., Case 1:2008- cv-00333 (N.D. Ga.). While lead counsel representing Insituform, obtained a default judgment against defendant Cosmic Sondermaschinenbau GmbH for repeated violations of Court Orders. Obtained a sanction of $441,000 for attorneys’ fees necessary to cure repeated discovery violations and to oppose Cosmic’s unfounded retaliatory motion for sanctions
  • Insituform Technologies, et al v. Cat Contracting, et , 4:1990-cv-01690 (S.D. Tx.). As lead counsel for Insituform in a patent infringement suit, Mr. Maddock tried damages to the court resulting in a judgment of $9.6 million for Insituform. Case subsequently settled favorably for Insituform
  • Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients GmbH The Ingredient House, LLC et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-4232 (N.D. Ill.). Represented plaintiff in a patent infringement suit where the patent covered an intermediary by-product in the manufacturing process. The primary patents had expired. Defendant was owned by former Nutrinova executives, and settled with Nutrinova on favorable terms
  • Valley Entertainment v. Friesen et al., 1:2008-cv-03470 (N.D. Ill.). Lead counsel representing defendant in a copyright infringement suit for infringement of certain music. Won summary judgment of non-infringement. Attorneys’ fees awarded
  • Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company U-Haul International, Inc., 4:2003-cv-01480 (E.D. Mo.). Lead counsel who represented Enterprise in a trademark infringement action that alleged that U-Haul’s “eMove” mark infringed Enterprise’s “e” trademark. Case settled favorably for Enterprise
  • Illinois Tool Works et al. v. Thermal Dynamics Corp., 1:2003-cv-00966 (E.D. Wi.). Lead counsel responsible for defending Thermal Dynamics Corp. in a patent infringement suit concerning power supplies for welders. Case settled favorably
  • CIMA Labs, et al. v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., 0:2003-cv-02477 (D. Minn.). Represented KV in a patent infringement suit and defeated motion for preliminary injunction. After KV filed requests for reexamination of the patents, CIMA requested that the Court stay the case. The case was settled favorably for KV after KV filed for bankruptcy for reasons unrelated to the litigation
  • Prosecuted In re Certain Low Antimony Phosphoric Acid, No. 337-TA-620, as lead counsel on behalf of ICL Performance Products, LP (St. Louis, Missouri) (“ICL”). The complaint alleged the importation and the sale within the United States of certain low antimony phosphoric acid infringed certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,989,509. ICL favorably settled the matter
  • The GSI Group, Inc. Sukup Mfg. Co., Case No. 05-3011 (C.D. Il.). Cross-examined lead witness for GSI on behalf of Sukup, and defended against GSI’s allegations of false advertising. Witness for GSI, during cross-examination, admitted that GSI’s own advertising was false under GSI’s theory of the case. Case settled favorably for Sukup shortly after this cross-examination
Experienced Attorneys who fight for Justice & your Well-being
If you have been wronged, we can help

Didn’t Find what you were looking for?  | Search for Your Specific Subject or Term

SEARCH SITE
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

The CDL Attorneys

John J. Carey
Partner

Joseph P. Danis
Partner

Jeffrey J. Lowe
Partner

Hon. John Garvey

Sarah Shoemake Doles

Andrew J. Cross

James J. Rosemergy

Alyson M. Petrick

Paul Madock, St. Louis Attorney

Paul Maddock