U.S. District Courts for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the Eastern District of Michigan
U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal, First and Second Circuits
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Mr. Gates started his career as a litigation associate at Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC in Vermont, and joined Burns & Levinson in 2009.
Trademark and Unfair Competition Litigation:
- Media Digital, Inc. v. VIZIO, Inc., Case Nos. 13-cv-57 and 12-cv-313 (District of New Hampshire): Representing defendant against allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,101,324, entitled “computer touch screen radio station control system.”
- Optim LLC v. Sunoptic Technologies, LLC,Case No. 13-cv-13127 (District of Massachusetts): Represented Massachusetts-based company that develops; manufactures and supports state-of-the-art endoscopy products and accessories in patent litigation involving its U.S. Patent Nos. 7,229,201 and 7,798,692.
- Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp., Case No. 13-1565 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit): Representing appellee relative to appeal of interference decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146.
- GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02885 (Northern District of California): Representing Hawaiian company in patent litigation involving its U.S. Patent Nos. 7,555,267, 7,570,954 and 7,792,492.
- Samson Mfg. Corp. et al. v. Austin Precision Products, Inc., d/b/a Larue Tactical., Case No. 09-cv-30027 (District of Massachusetts): Assisted client in obtaining a favorable claim construction ruling concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,356,152.
- NetView Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-12072 (District of Massachusetts): Representing Massachusetts-based company in patent litigation involving its U.S. Patent No. 7,251,776.
- Insight Technology, Inc. v. Surefire, LLC, Case No. 04-cv-00074 (District of New Hampshire): Assisted in client’s defense against allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,574,901.
- Xen, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc., Case No. CV11-09568 (Central District of California): Assisted Citrix Systems, Inc. in trademark litigation to protect its registered XEN trademarks.
- Charm Step/Easy Street Sales Corporation v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-11787 (District of Massachusetts): Represented New Hampshire-based company in litigation alleging willful trademark infringement of its common law mark “Easy Street” in the footwear market.
- Medicus Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Mastrangelo, Case No. 218-2012-CV-00800 (N.H. Superior Court (Rockingham County)): Represented dissenting unit-holder in litigation, obtaining favorable orders on partial summary judgment concerning the inapplicability of minority and lack of marketability discounts in the assessment of fair value of non-voting units in an LLC.
- Troy Industries, Inc. v. Samson Mfg. Corp., Case No. 213-2012-CV-00295 (N.H. Superior Court (Cheshire County)): Defended client in action for domestication of a Massachusetts judgment, including issue of which state’s interest rate would apply post-filing in New Hampshire.
- Laquerre v. Embrace Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-01040 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire): Defended client against alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act.
- Bertelli v. Ocean Industries, LLC d/b/a Acu-Gage Systems, Case No. 217-2010-cv-00547 (N.H. Superior Court (Merrimack Business & Commercial Dispute Docket)): Represented a New Hampshire-based company relative to a dispute over restrictive covenants in an employment relationship.
- Mr. Gates was the chair of the New Hampshire Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Section (2013-2014). Previously, he served as the Section’s clerk and acting vice president (2012-2013).
- While attending law school, Mr. Gates was the editor-in-chief of the Penn State Environmental Law Review, an active member of the ATLA Trial Competition Team, received the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law and the CALI Award for Highest Grade in Environmental Litigation.
- J.D., cum laude, The Dickinson School of Law of The Pennsylvania State University, 2005 (Woolsack Honor Society)
- B.S., The Pennsylvania State University, 2002 (Phi Beta Kappa; minor, Mathematics)
- Mr. Gates was selected for inclusion in Massachusetts Rising Stars ® (2014). Super Lawyers and Rising Stars employ an annual jurisdictional selection process. Only five percent of lawyers in the state were selected to the Super Lawyers list and 2.5 percent to the Rising Stars list. The listing appears annually in the November issue of Boston magazine and in New England Super Lawyers.
Recent Articles and Publications:
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Alice Case: What You Need to Know
Intellectual Property Update, June 2014
Intellectual Property Law: Reasons to Litigate Patent Disputes in the District of NH
New Hampshire Bar News, June 21, 2013
Intellectual Property Law: Severance Of Patent Litigation Defendants in a Post-AIA Legal Landscape
New Hampshire Bar News, June 15, 2012
Intellectual Property Law (First Circuit Decisions)
Annual Review of Developments in Business and Corporate Litigation, 2010-2014 Editions
Zachary Gates has co-authored a chapter in the past five editions of this annual publication.
Obeying the ‘Speed’ Limit
13 PENN. ST. ENVTL. L. REV. 173, 2005
Framing the Appropriate Role of EPA Criminal Enforcement Actions against Clandestine Drug Laboratory Operators in Light of the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000
American Bar Association’s Business Law Section Webinar, 11.1.2013
Topic: Litigating Valuation Issues: Make Sure It's Worth Something If You're Going to Fight About It
Lakes Creative Economy Program, 10.22.2013
Location: Laconia, NH
Topic: Intellectual Property Basics
American Bar Association Business Law Section Spring Meeting, 4.6.2013
Location: Washington, D.C.
Topic: Valuation Considerations In Intellectual Property Litigation
Boston Bar Association Event, 12.8.2011
Location: Boston, MA
Topic: Basics of Intellectual Property Practice
West LegalEdcenter Webinar, 6.22.2011
Topic: Patent Infringement after the Global-Tech Supreme Court Decision