Scott T. Lonardo
Describe your experience practicing law. How has that experience helped you with clients, judges, opposing counsel, and colleagues?
I began my legal career with a judicial clerkship. That experience enables me to be a better advocate for my clients. I take what I learned from the attorneys I observed and use it to succeed for my clients - whether it is a style of writing, an approach to a case, or the manner in which I conduct myself with opposing counsel or in court. In particular, I understand that a good grasp of procedure is key to successful litigation.
At Pattishall, the team approach means that everyone has a sounding board, a counselor, a more experienced voice, and an opportunity to contribute. No good idea is dismissed because it came from a younger or less experienced lawyer. At the same time, it's amazing to be able to turn to lawyers with decades of experience in the field - lawyers who literally wrote the laws we apply and argued the cases we cite.
What personal and professional qualities do you have that help your clients?
I take my work very seriously and it's very important to me personally. Even when I leave the office, I'm thinking about new angles to solve a client's problem. Some of my best ideas come when I least expect them.
It's important to find a mix of creativity and practicality. I like to explore new ideas and innovative arguments, but I don't get carried away by theories that won't help the client prevail.
What qualities do you look for in other lawyers?
There are three qualities I respect in other lawyers that I try to emulate. First, the most effective lawyer is the one who can get to the heart of the matter directly and efficiently. If solving one problem resolves the entire matter, then that is the best resolution.
Second, the most important skill for a lawyer is the ability to explain complex problems in a clear and concise manner. Whether the audience is a client, a colleague, or a judge, explaining one's position briefly and clearly is key.
Third, civility is very important, for obvious reasons, but also because of the advantages it can offer with other lawyers or a judge. A lawyer who acts cordially and is willing to compromise when appropriate is the best lawyer for the client. Civility may save the client money and preserve relationships that may be important for a positive outcome. In the intellectual property field, there are lots of win-win solutions, but they disappear if the other side would rather not deal with a difficult lawyer.
Why did you choose IP law?
There are several reasons. For one, trademark work appeals to me because it involves very tangible problems. Lawyers are consumers too. We see brands in the marketplace and appreciate how important branding is from the perspective of the average consumer. Like any consumer, we can be deceived by a potentially infringing mark. Our experience as trademark attorneys, though, allows us to augment our consumer experience by applying our legal knowledge to articulate and prove infringement. The result protects both our clients from unfair competition, and consumers - people just like us - from a deceptive marketplace.
In addition, IP work is gratifying and interesting because the results of our cases have direct and immediate benefits that are often times visible in the marketplace. For example, seeing a client's share of the market expand after enjoining an infringing mark satisfies us and our clients. It's rewarding to see a trademarked product on the shelf after having fought for the registration.
Industry Expertise
-
Food & Drug Retailing
-
Health Care Equipment & Services
-
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology

Trials, Appeals & Litigation
-
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Nextep, Inc. et al, Case No. C.A. No. 3:2009-cv-00156 (D. Nev. 2010, Judge Jones) (Summary Judgment)
(Unfair Competition)
-
Givens v. American College of Trial Lawyers, Case No. 1:2009-cv-00074 (M.D. Ala. 2009, Judge Walker) (Summary Judgment)
(Internet, E-Commerce and Computer Technology)
-
Lovemore, LLC v. More Cupcakes, LLC, Cancellation No. 92051835 (TTAB 2010)
(Trademark)
-
World Wide Sales, Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Case No. 1:2008cv01198 (N.D. Ill. 2009, Judge Kennelly) (granting summary judgment for defendant on trademark infringement and fraud claims)
(Trademark Infringement)
-
Kenosha Lumber & Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. PDS Electronics, Inc., Opposition No. 91188662 (TTAB 2009)
(Trademark)
-
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Nikiforov, Case No. D2009-1024 (WIPO 2009)
(Internet, E-Commerce and Computer Technology)
-
More Cupcakes, LLC v. Lovemore LLC, Case No. 1:2009cv03555 (N.D. Ill. 2009, Judge Kocoras)
(Trademark Infringement)
-
Bayer Corporation v. Dairy Management Inc., Opposition No. 91157755 (TTAB 2009)
(Trademark)
-
Phillips Performance Nutrition, LLC v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Case No. 1:2007cv01982 (D. Colo. 2009, Judge Brimmer)
(Trademark Infringement)
-
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Nextep, Inc. and Samuel L. Paul, Case No. 1:2008-cv-00567 (S.D. Ohio 2009, Judge Barrett)
(Unfair Competition)

Professional Activities
-
Chicago Bar Association
:
Member

Publications
