Henry Law Firm

Our Results

“Happy” resolution of Happy Trails Trailer Sales case

“Happy” resolution of Happy Trails Trailer Sales case

Sep 23, 2020

In July 2020, the parties to the trademark lawsuit filed in the Western District of Arkansas resolved their claims of trademark infringement. Client Happy Trails Trailer Sales sued Happy Trailer Sales for trademark infringement and sought a permanent injunction to...

read more
PVPA infringement – $2,975,000 judgment

PVPA infringement – $2,975,000 judgment

Mar 18, 2020

South Dakota Board of Regents v. James Fevold, Fevold Farm Service, Fevold Seed Farm, and John Does 1-50, N.D. Iowa, 3:18-CV-3005 LTS. Representing the South Dakota Board of Regents, we obtained a series of judgments stemming from an illegal seed operator in Iowa, and...

read more
Cuker Interactive – $12,400,000 million jury verdict

Cuker Interactive – $12,400,000 million jury verdict

Aug 31, 2017

Walmart v. Cuker Interactive, LLC. W.D. Ark. No. 5:14-cv-5262-TLB. After two weeks of a jury trial in federal court in Fayetteville, Arkansas, a unanimous jury returned a $12.4 million dollar verdict in favor of our client, Cuker Interactive, LLC on claims of...

read more
Canadian toymakers cleared

Canadian toymakers cleared

Jun 1, 2017

Redwoodventures Ltd. v Irwin RX Ltd., W.D. Ark. No. 5:15-cv-5174-TLB. Plaintiffs Redwoodventures Ltd. filed this trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement case against our clients - the Canadian toy producers, Irwin RX, Ltd. In defending the case for Irwin,...

read more
Trade dress infringement – Rotoworks of New Zealand

Trade dress infringement – Rotoworks of New Zealand

May 1, 2017

Rotoworks Int’l Ltd. v. Grassworks USA, LLC, W.D. Ark., No. 07-CV-5009 After a weeklong trial in Fayetteville Federal District Court, a jury determined that the defendant engaged in a bait-and-switch operation in this trademark infringement case. Our firm represented...

read more
Watley Seed Company – Consent Judgment of $616,000

Watley Seed Company – Consent Judgment of $616,000

Apr 1, 2017

Watley Seed Co. v. Bronco Seed Co., et al., N.D. Tex., No. 10-CV-271-C Our firm secured consent judgments and settlement agreements for PVP infringement claims totaling $616,000 against 17 Texas defendants engaged in the sale, purchase, or conditioning of proprietary...

read more
Television show producers prevail

Television show producers prevail

Mar 1, 2017

Garrison, et al. v. Jones T.V., et al., Washington Co., Ark., No. CV-11-2388-4 Henry Law Firm defended Hollywood producers in a lawsuit targeting the television show Last Shot with Judge Gunn. As part of our defense to these claims, we filed a summary judgment motion...

read more
Tele-radiology computer code case

Tele-radiology computer code case

Feb 1, 2017

Southeast X-Ray, Inc., et al. v. Spears, et al., W.D. Ark., No. 13-CV-2026-PKH Our firm defended against claims of copyright infringement and trade secret theft in a case involving teleradiology and X-Ray imaging software. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed to have...

read more
$2.5 Million Judgment – Patented Clearfield Rice Seed

$2.5 Million Judgment – Patented Clearfield Rice Seed

Jan 1, 2017

BASF v. Arnold, et al., E.D. Ark., No. 04-CV-0311 In this case, our firm secured a $2.5 million consent judgment for willful patent infringement against more than twenty co-defendants in a case involving patented traits in rice seed. The settlement allowed all...

read more
S.A. Walls – Patent Ruled Invalid

S.A. Walls – Patent Ruled Invalid

Dec 28, 2016

Jones v. Walls, et al., N.D. Okla., No. 07-CV-107-GKF-PJC We defended against patent infringement claims having original demand against our client of $16,000,000. In connection with a multi-day jury trial, we invalidated the underlying patent using admissions of...

read more

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