Gregory F. WesnerCounsel

(206) 819-0821

Greg Wesner is of counsel in the Seattle office of Herman Jones LLP. His practice focuses on patent, trademark and other intellectual property litigation, and related counseling. He has more than twenty-eight years of trial experience, and has served as trial counsel in dozens of patent and trademark disputes, including cases tried to a jury.

Mr. Wesner’s patent litigation experience includes work with pharmaceuticals and medical devices, laser telemetry, wireless infrastructure technology, radio communication technology, as well as algorithms for digital image compression and video compression. Mr. Wesner has studied microbiology, physics, computer science, genetics and chemistry and is licensed to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Mr. Wesner also has substantial experience litigating trademark and technology law cases. He was involved in the first lawsuit ever brought under the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), where his client defeated an effort to enjoin distribution of its file conversion software. Mr. Wesner has arbitrated international trademark disputes in the United Nations’ World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Mr. Wesner also works with clients to develop intellectual property portfolio strategies to protect crucial IP assets at all phases of a company’s growth. This includes strategic threat assessment and freedom-to-operate analysis, aligning business plans with IP, and all phases of IP enforcement. His involvement in a wide array of domestic and international intellectual property litigation matters gives him the ability to anticipate and typically avoid expensive enforcement litigation.

Mr. Wesner’s practice emphasizes civic and professional involvement. He has served as pro bono General Counsel to the Seattle Symphony Orchestra and its related foundation, and also as counsel to the Experience Music Project | Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame in its community outreach efforts. He has also served as Special Disciplinary Counsel to the Washington State Bar Association prosecuting attorney malfeasance before the Bar Disciplinary Board.

In recognition of these efforts, Washington Law & Politics named Mr. Wesner a “Rising Star” beginning in 2004, and, since 2007, has named him a “Washington Super Lawyer” in intellectual property litigation.

Professional/Civic Activities

  • United States Department of State, World Affairs Council Foreign Visitor
    Program – host on intellectual property issues
  • Keiretsu Forum
  • Northwest Entrepreneur Network
  • Washington State Patent Lawyers’ Association
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association

Featured Seminars & Speaking Engagements

Mr. Wesner is frequent speaker on topics including monetizing intellectual property, IP protection for startup and emerging companies, IP protection for cannabis-related brands and innovations, and managing outside IP counsel.


Mr. Wesner’s writing and opinion on intellectual property issues has appeared in the World Trademark Review, ThomsonReuters Recent Trends in Patent Infringement Lawsuits, the Pipeline– Cannabis Law Journal, Intellectual Property Litigation, IP Strategist, Business Week, the Puget Sound Business Journal, the King County Bar Bulletin, The Oregonian, and elsewhere.


  • District of Columbia
  • Washington
  • U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (Reg. No. 64996)
  • Virginia (inactive)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Representative Matters

  • Adelos, Inc. v. Halliburton Company, et al. (D. Montana 2017). Patent infringement litigation regarding advanced fiber optic sensors.
  • AgJunction Corporation, et al. v. Raven Industries, Inc., et al. (W.D. Texas 2017). Patent infringement litigation regarding GPS-guided precision agriculture technology.
  • Jinni Tech Ltd. v., Inc. (W.D. Washington 2017). Patent infringement, trade secrets, trademark and defamation suit involving cinema video technology.
  • Adidas America, Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Elite Footwear, et al. (D. Oregon 2015). Patent and trademark litigation involving footwear designs.
  • Donald Thomas Scholz v. Fran Migliaccio (aka Fran Cosmo), et al. (W.D. Washington 2013). Trademark litigation brought by band founder against former bandmates involving rights to use the name “Boston.”
  • Cassidian Communications, Inc. v. Synergem Emergency Communications, LLC (M.D. Florida 2013). Patent infringement litigation regarding data integration technology for emergency communications.
  • Prosec Security Systems v. Guard RFID, Inc. (D. New Jersey 2011). Patent infringement litigation regarding radio frequency identification technology.
  • Shire LLC, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, et al. (D. Delaware 2010). Hatch-Waxman patent litigation regarding generic entry of extended release guanfacine formulations.
  • Moseley v. Fillmore Company, Ltd., et al. (TTAB 2009). Trademark litigation in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding the legacy of guitar designer Semie Moseley and the marks MOSRITE, VIBRAMUTE and MOSELEY.
  • Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., et al. (W.D. Pennsylvania 2009). Patent infringement litigation regarding technology for improving magnetic storage density.
  • Warnock Food Products, Inc. v. Snack Alliance, Inc. (Superior Court of California 2009). Litigation over patent and trade secret claims relating to snack food manufacturing.
  • Chief Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Research Technologies, Inc. (W.D. Washington 2006). Litigation of trade secrets and patent rights with respect to laser telemetry systems.
  • CMSI, Inc. v. Pacific Cycle, Inc. (W.D. Washington 2006). Litigation of express reverse passing off trademark claims with respect to unauthorized importation of motor scooters.
  • Emergis, Inc. v. Avista Corporation (E.D. Washington 2006). Defense of patent claims purportedly covering electronic invoice presentment and payment (“EIPP”) transactions.
  • Arctic Circle Enterprises v. Alaska Juneau Mining Company (D. Alaska 2006). Litigation of copyright claims relating to imported tourist goods.
  • Vanson HaloSource, Inc. v. Hild (W.D. Wisconsin – “Rocket Docket” 2005). Litigation of patent claims regarding wastewater treatment systems.
  • Tseng v. Home Depot and Wal-Mart (W.D. Washington 2005). Litigation of patent claims regarding lighting systems.
  • Kouvato, Inc. v. Jore Corp., (D. Montana, 2003). Trial counsel for Jore in patent non-infringement declaratory judgment action in Montana federal district court over tool designs. Obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement.
  • Glenayre Electronics, Inc. v. Jackson (N.D. Illinois, 2002). Trial counsel for Glenayre in patent non-infringement declaratory judgment action in federal court in Chicago over wireless infrastructure technology. Verdict remitted to less than Jackson’s litigation costs.
  • The University of Washington v. Pine Group, Ltd. (WIPO 2002). Obtained a World Intellectual Property Organization arbitration award permitting the University of Washington to register its trademark in the People’s Republic of China.
  • Additional patent litigation involving: radio frequency scanning technology (Atkinson v. ICOM America, Inc., S.D. Indiana, 2002); algorithms for digital image compression (LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, W.D. Washington, 2001); video compression algorithms (Multimedia Patent Trust v. DirecTV, et al., and Multimedia Patent Trust v. Disney, et al., S.D. California 2008 and 209), and hand tools (Eazypower v. Jore Corp., N.D. Illinois, 2004).
  • RealNetworks v. Streambox, (W.D. WA 1999). Represented a small start-up in the first case ever brought under the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Defeated a motion for preliminary injunction and achieved a favorable settlement for the client.
  • International and domestic copyright and trademark litigation involving medical devices, role-playing game systems, domain names, college textbooks, water purification systems, Alaska seafood products, laser engraving systems, eBusiness software, critical test methods for airplanes, and others.