Ranked for Litigation & Trial: Intellectual Property Litigation California. Quoted sources say they are "very impressed" with his responsiveness and "off the charts" technical ability.

 

Chambers USA 2016

Perry J. Viscounty

Orange County
  • 650 Town Center Drive
  • 20th Floor
  • Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
  • USA
 
 

Perry Viscounty is a nationally recognized trial attorney who handles high-stakes cases for companies ranging from Fortune 100 to emerging companies.

Mr. Viscounty has been recognized as a leading trial lawyer in:

  • Chambers USA 2016 - Band 1: Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets 
  • The Legal 500 US 2016 as a "Leading Lawyer" for Intellectual Property
  • Chambers USA 2015 – Band 1 (California): Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets. Mr. Viscounty is regarded as "exceptional in his specialist practice area" and he is "always available and highly responsive."
  • Chambers Global 2015 – Band 2: US Intellectual Property: Trademark Copyright & Trade Secrets
  • The Legal 500 US 2015 as a "Leading Lawyer" for Intellectual Property - Trademarks and Trade Secrets: Litigation
  • Daily Journal as among the Top Intellectual Property Lawyers in California (multiple years). Named the "Top Plaintiffs' Verdicts by Impact" in 2013 for his US$18.1 million jury verdict for American Chung Nam, one of China's largest paper recyclers.
  • World Intellectual Property Review 2017 as a "Leader"
  • The Recorder as a 2013 Top Rated Lawyer for "Intellectual Property Law"  

Mr. Viscounty is a member of the International Trademark Association and an arbitrator for the World Intellectual Property Organization. Mr. Viscounty has been a guest lecturer at USC and UCLA, and has taught numerous seminars regarding effective presentations for jury trials and arbitrations.

Mr. Viscounty's experience includes representation of:

  • Apple in several litigation matters
  • America Chung Nam, Inc., the largest exporter of recycled paper in the US, in a three-week trade secret jury trial in Los Angeles resulting in a judgment of US$18.1 million for his client. In its annual Top Verdicts of 2013 feature, the Daily Journal selected this case as a “Top Plaintiffs’ Verdicts by Impact” in California
  • Buzz Off Insect Shield in a five-week jury trial in North Carolina successfully defending against trademark infringement, false advertising and unfair trade practices claims (S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Buzz Off Insect Shield, LLC et.al.)
  • The Waterfront Hilton Hotel in a four month trial in Orange County, California
  • Adobe against trademark and trade dress infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, copyright infringement and unfair competition claims
  • Allergan in a trademark infringement, unfair competition and false advertising case regarding Botox
  • GE in several lawsuits and arbitrations in the US and various other countries
  • One of the world's largest automobile makers in a global intellectual property dispute 

Additional representative clients include Paula Abdul, Allianz, Bank of America, Boeing, Broadcom, Capital Group Companies, Carlyle Group, Cartier, Chrome Hearts, City of Hope, Cooper Companies, craigslist, Eddie Bauer, Ecko, Entrepreneur Media, FileNet, Frank Gehry, Fred Segal, Gap, Goldman Sachs, Guthy-Renker, Intel, Intuity Medical, JP Morgan, Lyft, Mattel, Mikasa, Mont Blanc, Mossimo, Nestlé, NHR, Nissan, Oakley, Office Depot, Old Navy, Omicom, Paul Frank, Remedy, Robb Report, Rockwell Collins, Saban Brands, Santa Barbara Polo Club, Schiff Nutrition, Sepracor, Skullcandy, Sony, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, St. John Knits, Symantec, TiVo, Trion Worlds, US Soccer Federation, VeriSign, Veritas, Vizio, Volcom, Wet Seal, Western Digital and Wikia.

 
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.