FacultyFaculty/Author Profile
Trevor Carter

Trevor Carter

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

Indianapolis, IN, USA

Trevor Carter focuses on patent litigation and client counseling on patent matters. He has litigated patent cases on medical devices, software, Internet technology, consumer electronics and mechanical devices in federal courts throughout the United States, including Arizona, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, the International Trade Commission and the Federal Circuit. Trevor also provides opinions to clients on non-infringement and invalidity.

Trevor is active in the patent litigation community through board and committee work, speaking and writing. He has been a contributing author to the American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Newsletter since 2004. Since 2007, he has been a member of the Local Rules Committee for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. With the Practicing Law Institute, Trevor contributes to the Patent Law Practice Center blog and speaks at national conferences. Trevor has also given presentations and authored articles with a number of other organizations and publications, and he has served on IP advisory boards for Law360 and Patent Strategy & Management.

Before practicing law, Trevor was a project engineer and maintenance foreman for Marathon Oil Company and a cooperative education student engineer for McDonnell Douglas.

Representative Cases

  • Joovy LLC & Albert T. Fairclough v. Target Corp., Nos. 2010-1351 (Fed. Cir. and N.D. Tex.) — lead counsel for defendant Target in Northern District of Texas jury trial and Federal Circuit appeal. At the district court, the patent-in-suit was found unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. On appeal, the Federal Circuit invalidated the only patent claim-at-issue.
  • Sofpool LLC v. Intex Recreation Corp. (Fed. Cir. and E.D. Tex.) — lead counsel for Intex in Eastern District of Texas jury trial. The jury and district court found that Intex did not infringe the two design patents-at-issue.
  • Thomson Inc. v. Guardian Media Techs., Ltd., (Fed. Cir. and S.D. Cal.) — lead counsel for Thomson in Southern District of California and Federal Circuit appeal. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement for Thomson on technology involving parental control in consumer electronics.
  • In the Matter of Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-789, U.S. International Trade Commission — lead counsel for respondent in patent infringement litigation related to digital cable technology.
  • Tel-Tron Technologies Corporation v. Stanley Security Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Stanley Healthcare Solutions, No. 6:11-cv-01449-MSS-GJK (M.D. Fla.) — lead counsel for defendant in patent infringement litigation relating to emergency call systems.
  • Guardian Media Techs., Ltd. v. Acer Am. Corp., et al., No. 6:10-cv-00597-LED (E.D. Tex. filed Nov. 10, 2010) — lead counsel for defendant in patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent Nos. 4,930,158 and 4,930,160, related to rating-control technology for televisions and DVD players.
  • Medien Patent Verwaltung AG v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc., Technicolor Inc., & Deluxe Entm't Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 1:10-cv-04119-CM (S.D.N.Y. filed May 19, 2010) — lead counsel for Technicolor and Warner Brothers in patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,187,633, related to motion picture film soundtracks having an antipiracy identification code.
  • Polaris Industries Inc. v. Jerrico International, Inc. and CSK Auto, Inc. (D. Minn.) — lead counsel for Polaris in patent and trade dress infringement lawsuit involving ATVs.
  • Centillion Data Systems, Inc. v. American Management Systems, Inc., Cable & Wireless USA, Inc., Frontier Corporation and Sprint Spectrum (S.D. Ind.) — lead counsel for Frontier in patent infringement litigation on billing software to telecommunications.  
  • Parental Guide of Texas Inc. v. Funai Corp. Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) — lead counsel for defendant Thomson Consumer Electronics in patent infringement litigation on television v-chip technology.
  • Porter Athletic Co. v. Draper, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) — lead counsel for defendant in patent infringement litigation on a basketball goal height adjuster.
  • Pro-Gard Industries LP v. Santa Cruz Associates LTD (S.D. Ind.) — lead counsel for plaintiff in patent infringement litigation on electromechanical locks.
  • Louis M. Kohus v. Toys "R" Us, Inc. (S.D. Ohio) — lead counsel for defendants in patent infringement litigation on baby swing.
  • Big Sky Racks, Inc. v. Pro-Gard Industries (D. Mont.) — lead counsel for defendant in patent infringement litigation on police car equipment.

  • The International Who's Who of Commercial Litigation Lawyers, 2013
  • Managing IP — IP Star, 2013
  • The Best Lawyers in America — Intellectual Property Litigation, 2010-14, and Patent Litigation, 2012-14 (Indianapolis Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer of the Year, 2013)
  • Benchmark Litigation — Future Star, 2012-14
  • Indiana Super Lawyers — Intellectual Property Litigation, 2011-13
  • Indiana Law Review — Associate Editor
  • Intern — The Honorable John D. Tinder, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 1994
Professional Organizations

  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana — Local Rules Committee, 2007-present
  • Law360 — Intellectual Property Editorial Advisory Board, 2010
  • ALM (American Lawyer Media) — Patent Strategy & Management, Law Journal Newsletter, Advisory Board, 2007-09
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana — Local Rules Committee, 2007-present

  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.