S. Lloyd Smith

T:703 838 6514 / 202-452-7302  |   F:703 836 2021 Alexandria
T:202 452 7900  |   F:202 452 7989 Washington, D.C.
S. Lloyd Smith focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and enforcement matters. His case experience includes trademark infringement, false advertising, patent infringement, and unfair competition trials and litigation in various venues nationwide. He has argued before numerous U.S. District Courts nationwide, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Third Circuit, and the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Lloyd is the co-chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation group and chair of the firm's practice group for litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Some of Lloyd's representations include:

  • In the Matter of Certain Agricultural Machines, No. 337-TA-487 (US ITC) [represented Deere & Company in matter involving "gray market" and other imported goods infringing Deere's famous green and yellow trademarks and JOHN DEERE trademark.]
  • Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC; Cavalier Telephone, LLC, et. al. (E.D.Va.) [represented accused infringer in patent infringementaction involving patents covering analog modem technology.]
  • Carl Zeiss Vision Int' GmbH v. Signet Armorlite, Inc., (S.D. Cal.) [representation of Carl Zeiss Vision, the patent owner, in a pending action against a competitor alleging infringement of a United States patent in covering progressive lens technology.]
  • AOL v. Advertising.com. (E.D. Va.) [represented owner of domain name accused of trademark infringement.]
  • Deere & Co. v. Jaden Kanga Group. (D. S.C.) [represented Deere & Company against alleged infringer of Deere's famous yellow and green trademarks.]
  • SecureInfo Corp. v. Telos Corp., (E.D.Va) [represented patent owner in a suit pertaining to computer assisted methods for assessing risk to a target computer system.]
  • Capital One v. Drive Financial Services (E.D.Va.) [represented owner of DRIVE trademark for financial services]
  • Precision Financing LLC (“PFL”) v. Khalid (E.D. Va.) [represented owner of PRECISION TUNE trademark]
  • Tetra Pak v. Cheese Systems, Inc. (W.D.Wisc.) [representing patent owner in suit pertaining to cheese production technology]
  • Radlo Foods, LLC v. Born Free, Inc. (D. Del.) [represented owner of BORN FREE trademark.]
  • National Fuel Marketing Co. LLC v. National Fuel Gas Co., (M.D.Pa.) [represented large utility company in dispute over NATIONAL FUEL trademark]
  • Anthurium Solutions, Inc. v. MedQuist Inc., et al., (E.D. Tex) [represented provider of medical transcription technology against alleged infringement of a patent covering a system for automatic electronic document processing.]
  • Sepracor, Inc. v. Dey, L.P., No. 06-113-KAJ (D.Del.) [represented Sepracor in Paragraph IV infringement case relating to a generic version of levalbuterol.]
  • Sepracor, Inc. v. Breath Ltd., No. 06-10043-DPW (D.Mass.) [represented Sepracor in Paragraph IV infringement case relating to a generic version of levalbuterol.]
  • Agere Systems Guardian Corp. v. Proxim, Inc., No. 01 339 RRM (D.Del.) [represented defendant in infringement action concerning patents related to wireless technology.]
  • IPPV Enterprises v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., (D. Del.) [represented IPPV Enterprises regarding pay-per-view technology and direct broadcast satellite receivers.]
  • IPPV Enterprises, Inc. v. EchoStar Communications, Inc., (D.Del.) [represented owner of patents related to pay-per-view television.]
  • Mueller Sports Medicine, Inc. v Beveridge Marketing LLC, (W.D. Wisc.), [represented defendant accused of infringing patent for under eye light absorbing devices worn by athlete and trademarks.]
  • Bush Brothers & Co., Inc. v. Nash Finch Co., No. 02-1621-SLR (D. Del.) [represented owner of Bush Brother's famous trade dress for Bush's beans.]
  • Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., No. 00-CV-596 (LMM), (S.D.N.Y.) [represented Deere & Co. in a matter protecting Deere's famous green and yellow trade dress on outdoor power equipment.]
  • Hanson v. Hanson, (N.D. Cal.) [represented defendant against a preliminary injunction seeking change of client's domestic tradenames and numerous trademarks.]
  • RP Technical Services, Inc. v. Severe Paintball, L.C., (S.D. Fla.) [represented defendant against injunction against client's trade dress for paintballs.]
  • Gus Sclafani Corp. v. Violet Packing Co., Cancellation Nos. 25,837;27,434; Opposition No.106,710, 2002 TTAB Lexis 107 (TTAB), aff'd 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 1103 (Fed.Cir. 2003) [obtained favorable ruling from the TTAB, upheld by Federal Circuit concerning client's priority of use.]
  • Waterford Wedgewood PLC v. Forma-Kutzscher Gmbh, Opposition No. 123,735 [represented Waterford against infringement of its industry leading LISMORE mark for crystal.]
  • Fifty Six Hope Road v. Raising Cane’s, Cancellation No. [representing trademark registrant of ONE LOVE mark against petition for cancellation]

Lloyd was a partner with Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, one of the oldest and largest law firms in the United States focusing exclusively on intellectual property, until its lawyers and other professionals joined Buchanan in 2005.