Practice Areas

Federal Complex Litigation

Federal complex litigation

Comprehensive solutions to complex problems

Some conflicts can be avoided, but a lawsuit may be necessary to bring about change. Our firm works with many types of complex cases. One of the most complicated areas of the law is the enforcement or defense of claims of trademarks, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets. We also represent companies in failed business sales, those denied insurance coverage, and disputes with significant electronic discovery. Our work is primarily devoted to federal court because our area of expertise is rooted in federal law.

e-Commerce and Digital Discovery

Our society communicates with digital. In a lawsuit, preserving email, texts, and e-signature records is essential. Because our firm has been paperless for nearly 24 years, we embrace technology. We can also help identify and preserve critical evidence at the beginning of a dispute. A digitized law office makes communicating with clients and collaborating with professionals easier.

Case Study: Redman & Associates, LLC v. Sales Chief Ent. (Hong Kong) Co., LTD (Case No. 5:14-cv-05277-TLB)

We represented a toy importer in the United States in a lawsuit against a Chinese manufacturer. The documents were estimated to be 4 million pages. In that case, critical documents were authored in Chinese and Mandarin, so we engaged computer programmers to translate and remove duplicates. Utilizing computer programming saved our client tremendous sums of time reviewing the documents’ avalanche.

Prepared

There are many attorneys from which to choose, and we urge you to speak with several firms so that you can have confidence in your decision and selection. One factor to consider is whether your attorney has received a peer review and award of ethics and competency, such as a Martindale Hubbell ratings service. Another way to check is to read reported cases and words selected by judges who presided over our case.

Case study: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC (Case No. 5:14-cv-05262-TLB)

Recently, our firm received special mention for our preparedness. While our client prevailed in a “David vs. Goliath” matter adverse to the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, what was even more remarkable was the roadblocks involved. The Court ordered Walmart to pay an additional $400,299.96 as a sanction because of Walmart’s vexatious tactics, which multiplied the cost of litigation for our client. Read more here.

Trademark

Trademark owners file suit to prevent customer confusion when a competitor adopts a confusingly similar branding. We can help identify the extent to which there is customer confusion in the marketplace, which is often the threshold question in trademark cases.

Doxa Total Design Strategy Inc v. Doxa Enterprises Inc (Case No. 4:10-cv-00717-GTE)

Happy Trails Trailer Sales, LLC v. Happy Trailer Sales, LLC (Case No. 2:20-cv-02067-PKH)

Rotoworks International Limited v. Grassworks USA, LLC et al (Case No. 5:07-cv-05009-JLH)

RedwoodVentures, LTD et al v. Irwin RX LTD et al (Case No. 5:15-cv-05174-TLB)

CBD Hospitality, LLC v. CG Brickell, LLC (Case No. 5:19-cv-05181-PKH)

Operation Homefront, Inc v. Brock (Case No. 6:19-cv-06125-RTD)

KK Couture Resale, LLC et al v. Tory Burch LLC et al (Case No. 5:15-cv-05283-TLB)

Pangaea, Inc. v. The Flying Burrito, LLC (Case No. 5:08-cv-05250-JLH)

Copyright

Copyright cases are typically filed to stop continuing unauthorized use. We have defended companies that have been sued for copyright infringement for use on the Internet and obtained injunctions to prohibit infringement. Timely registration of the copyright is key in this area of law.

Scholz Design, Inc. v. Calcon, Inc. (Case No. 5:07-cv-05081-JLH)

Scholz Design Inc v. Larue et al (Case No. 4:06-cv-01600-RSW)

Hoopla Brands, LLC v. Toys “R” Us, Inc. et al (Case No. 5:10-cv-05039-JLH)

Porter v. Arkansas Game and Fish Foundation et al (Case No. 2:05-cv-02168-RTD)

Bordelon v. Quantas Airways (Case No. 5:04-cv-05074-JLH)

Ellis v. Black et al (Case No. 3:08-cv-03025-JLH)

Dark v. Crescent Hotel, Inc., et al (Case No. 5:04-cv-05153-RTD)

Tomelleri v. Allen (Case No. 5:19-cv-05225-PKH)

Patents

Patent lawsuits are a substantial investment and are generally known as a bet-the-company case. We represent patent owners and also defend cases where infringement is alleged. For example, in the Jones v. Walls case, we defended a claim for $16,000,000 and invalidated the patent. See our Blog. Mark Henry was identified as an America’s 2020 Top 100 “Bet-the-company litigator.”

Jones v. Walls et al (Case No. 4:2007cv00107)

BASF Agrochemical, et al v. Arnold, et al (Case No. 3:04-cv-00311-JMM)

Monsanto Company, et al v. Kyle, et al (Case No. 2:04-cv-00208-JMM)

Trade Secrets

Trade secrets lawsuits are costly because of the amount of evidence required to establish for the trade secret owner the requisite level of protectable interest. Most of these cases involve willful deceit, which is not a simple thing to prove to a jury. In a recent case against Wal-Mart, a jury agreed with our client and found that Wal-Mart has acted “willfully” in stealing trade secrets from our California-based client, Cuker Interactive, LLC. See our Blog.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC (Case No. 5:14-cv-05262-TLB)

Southeast X-Ray, Inc. et al v. Spears et al (Case No. 2:13-cv-02026-PKH)

Nanomech, Inc. v. James Tacker et al (Case No. CV-12-648)

Biobased Technologies, LLC. v. Newbold (Case No. CV-11-1066-7)

Contact Us Today

With a proven track record of achieving excellent results in complex cases, Henry Law Firm is ready to go to work for you.

CONTACT OUR OFFICE

HENRY LAW FIRM

Otto M. Bartsch

With degrees in philosophy and chemistry, Otto excels in complex litigation and intellectual property cases.

In a recent federal case, Otto used forensic digital analysis of crucial documents to reveal their fraudulent nature, immediately resolving all claims in our client’s favor. Otto led a multi-jurisdictional collection effort of a $3.4 million judgment for Oklahoma Genetics, Inc. The case was on claims of intentional violation of the Plant Variety Protection Act, and a federal judge tripled our client’s damages. Years after the judgment was entered, Henry Law Firm forcibly seized substantial assets, and OGI could re-invest proceeds into future seed varieties and genetics.

Before affiliating with Henry Law Firm and practicing law as Otto M. Bartsch, PLLC, Otto earned his Master of Laws in Intellectual Property & Technology Law. At graduation, Otto ranked highest in his LL.M. class. He also won the Client Counseling Competition and competed in the national semi-finals of the AILPA Giles Rich Moot Court Competition in intellectual property law.

Otto works with clients to establish and protect their trademarks, copyrights, and brand identities. He is also experienced in breaking or enforcing non-competition agreements.

COURT ADMISSIONS

Otto is licensed to practice in Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas and has been admitted to practice in several federal courts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

HENRY LAW FIRM

Mark Henry

Mark is AV-Preeminent™ rated, a distinction earned through years of consistently outstanding legal work and a reputation for integrity. With decades of experience as a registered patent attorney and an LL.M. in agricultural law, he has developed a deep focus on protecting agricultural seed technology. Mark works closely with universities and multinational companies to navigate complex intellectual property matters and ensure long-term protection of innovation. He has handled more than 100 cases under the Plant Variety Protection Act, bringing a wealth of practical insight to the defense of plant breeders' rights. In addition to his legal practice, Mark has contributed to the field as an educator, teaching agricultural biotechnology law in the LL.M. program at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

Mark prosecutes and defends highly complex civil litigation and high-stakes, bet-the-company disputes involving trade secrets, patents, copyrights, and DMCA claims in federal courts across the country. His cases frequently address cutting-edge issues involving computer code, seed genetics, and architectural works. Licensed in six states and admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, he has served as lead counsel for clients in more than twenty-five states, offering broad strategic perspective and experience.

Mark brought one of the first cases under the Frank Broyles Publicity Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-1101, helping to shape the early application of Arkansas’s right of publicity law. He successfully represented professional rodeo athlete Cody James in a case involving the unauthorized commercial use of James’s name and likeness. A decorated competitor, Cody has qualified for the Arkansas Rodeo Association Championships 22 times, is a seven-time ARA Champion, and has been named both Overall Rookie of the Year and Tie-down Roping Rookie of the Year by the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association. Mark’s advocacy in Cody James v. Boot Barn, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-646-KGB (E.D. Ark. 2023), helped affirm the importance of protecting the identity and brand of professional athletes under Arkansas law.

He also serves as both trial and appellate counsel, offering a comprehensive approach to complex litigation. In Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Case No. 23-1293, (8th Cir. 2024), Mark secured a significant trial and appellate victory, successfully defending a $37.64 million claim in an energy dispute involving tariffed energy rates. The Eighth Circuit agreed that SPP had fully compensated AECI for the transactions in question and held that equitable recovery theories are not available when an express contract governs the parties’ relationship.

Mark is also known for taking a principled stand against improper litigation conduct. In Lyon v. The Academy, Inc., 2024 Ark. App. 386, he obtained Rule 11 sanctions against opposing Arkansas counsel Matthew Campbell and Elizabeth Lyon. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions, finding that their claims were frivolous, had no chance of success, and were brought solely to harass and drive up litigation costs—highlighting Mark’s commitment to professionalism and the integrity of the legal process.

When disputes arise with Walmart, Mark provides trusted counsel to both large and small vendors. Given that Walmart is headquartered in Northwest Arkansas and most of its contracts require disputes to be litigated in Benton County, Mark’s location in Fayetteville—home to the federal court for Northwest Arkansas—positions him ideally to handle these matters efficiently and effectively.

Mark is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Federal Circuits, and several federal district courts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the District of Nebraska, and the Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma. He also represents clients before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in trademark matters.

LAW REVIEW AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES