Search Our Website:
Lloyd Smith

Lloyd Smith


Intellectual Property Section Co-Chair

Washington, DC
Alexandria, VA

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. International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Third Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit.

Lloyd is the Co-Chair of the firm's Intellectual Property section and IP Litigation group, Chair of the firm's practice group for litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and previously served as head of the firm's Alexandria office. Lloyd currently serves on the firm’s Board of Directors. He is recognized in IAM’s Patent 1000 list, the best-in-class listing of patent prosecution, licensing and litigation practitioners.

Some of Lloyd's representations include:

  • Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Method Pharmaceuticals, LLC (W.D. Va.) [obtained jury verdict and treble damages for false advertising under the Lanham Act]
  • Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, Inc. (W.D. Wisc.) [represented patent owner; obtained summary judgment of infringement, case settled during presentation of Plaintiff’s damages and willfulness case at trial]
  • Women’s Choice Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Burel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (S.D.Miss.) [successfully represented plaintiff on claims of trademark infringement and false advertising and against defendant’s counterclaims for tortious interference]
  • JSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC v. Lazy Days’ R.V. Center Inc. (D.Del.) [represented accused patent infringer; case favorably resolved after claim construction hearing]
  • Ellsworth v. Mission22, (S.D. Ind.) [proudly represented special forces veterans group working against PTSD pro bono against allegations of copyright infringement]
  • 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; prevailed at trial and on appeal]
  • Carl Zeiss Vision Int'l GmbH v. Signet Armorlite, Inc., (S.D. Cal.) [represented patent owner Carl Zeiss Vision against a competitor alleging infringement of a United States patent in covering progressive lens technology.]
  • Deere & Co. v. Jaden Kanga Group. (D. S.C.) [represented Deere & Company against alleged infringer of Deere's famous yellow and green trademarks.]
  • AOL v. (E.D. Va.) [represented owner of domain name accused of trademark infringement.]
  • 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]
  • Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC; Cavalier Telephone, LLC, et. al. (E.D.Va.) [represented accused infringer in patent infringement action involving patents covering analog modem technology.]
  • 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.]
  • 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]
  • 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.]
  • 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.]
  • Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., No. 00-CV-596 (LMM), (S.D.N.Y.) [represented Deere & Co. protecting Deere's famous green and yellow trade dress on outdoor power equipment.]
  • RP Technical Services, Inc. v. Severe Paintball, L.C., (S.D. Fla.) [represented defendant against  infringement accusations against client's trade dress for paintballs.]
  • Raising Cane’s v. Fifty Six Hope RoadMusic, (M.D. La.), Cancellation No. [represented owner of ONE LOVE mark for restaurant services against allegations of infringement by song owner]