About Charles Thoeming

A man in a suit and jacket smiling for the camera.

Gonzaga University School of Law
Doctor of Jurisprudence

University of South Alabama
Master of Business Administration, Accounting and Finance

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
Bachelor of Science, Chemical Engineering

Practice With Passion

Defending works of the mind is a challenging task left to only the most passionate of lawyers. Intellectual property lawyers must respect the contributions and innovations of individuals and businesses, possess a deep understanding of the law, and be willing to do everything it takes to fight for intellectual property rights.

The principal of Ascendant IP®, Charles L. Thoeming, is an intellectual property lawyer with decades of experience in law, business, and chemical engineering. Offering counseling and advice predicated on responsibility, perseverance, commitment to excellence, courage, creativity, and high ethical and moral standards, Charles Thoeming practices with passion and the will to do what ought to be done to further a client’s intellectual property rights.

Each case is undertaken with a distinct knowledge of client goals and expected outcomes. Working successfully on all aspects of IP law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, clients have come to trust Charles Thoeming’s understanding of the complex aspects of intellectual property representation. Additionally, he specializes in patent prosecution, patent litigation, patent reexaminations and business method patent trials, trademark prosecution, trademark litigation, trademark cancellations, trademark oppositions, and IP audits.

With Ascendant IP®, you can spend more time focusing on creating and less on navigating intellectual property law complexities. If you’d like to schedule an appointment for a consultation, contact Ascendant IP® today.

Bar Admission

California; Texas; All United States District Courts, California and Texas; United States Court of Appeal, Fifth, Ninth, and Federal Circuit; United States Court of Claims; United States Supreme Court

Registered Patent Attorney –
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U. S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and U. S. Trademark Office Trial and Appeal Board.

Cases

DeltaTRAK. Inc. v. Environmental Friendly Products, Inc., Case No. CV-98-0075 LKK GGH, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

Trademark Infringement.

Dentsply International, Inc. v. Zap Lasers, LLC, Opposition No. 91184615, Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Trademark Opposition.

Robert Mondavi Winery v. Animo, L.P. Opposition No. 91185778, Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Trademark Opposition.

Woodmark Group v. Magers, et al., Civil Case No. C-07-03063; U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Trademark Infringement.

Herman Goelitz Candy Co., Inc. vs. ABCO Laboratories, Inc.; Opposition No. 120,012; Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Trademark Opposition.

Bell Brothers Heating and Air, Inc. vs. J. D. Greenberg Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-01525-KJM-EFB; U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

Trademark Infringement.

Audubon Cellars, Inc. vs. American-Nordic Trading Company, Case No. 677077; Harris County Court at Law, Houston, Texas.

Trademark Licensing/Satisfaction of Judgment

GVR Public Relations Agency, Inc. v. Society of Mexican American Engineers and Scientists, Inc. and Martin Martinez; C.A. NO. H-01-4057; U. S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

Trademark Infringement.

Pods Enterprises v. Keith Kenneally; Opposition No. 91195586; Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Trademark Opposition.

SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. ABCO Laboratories, Inc.; Opposition No. 91/158,970; Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Trademark Opposition.

Trimark Communities v. Pegasus Development I, et al., and William Costanzo, et al.; Case No. CIV. S-04-1213 LKK/KJM; U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento

Division.

Trademark Infringement.

Swiss Brands v. Brian A. Dempsey; Opposition Proceeding No. 91175614; Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Trademark Opposition.

Cedric A. Martin v. Con Funk Shun, J.V.; Opposition Proceeding No. 91176478; Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Trademark Opposition.

U. S. TRADEMARK PROSECUTION
The following U. S. trademark registrations are representative of our trademark prosecution services:

  1. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,909,428 for the Mark ADVANTECH AQUA;
  2. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,054,247 for the Mark AKESIS GALAXY;
  3. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,201,973 for the Mark UPFITTER INTERFACE MODULE;
  4. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,812,899 for the Mark ARCMATIC;
  5. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,891,834 for the Mark VERTASLAG;
  6. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,833,896 for the Mark FRAMEWEAR;
  7. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,810,826 for the Mark ABCO LABS;
  8. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,977,217 for the Mark GOURMET NATURALLY;
  9. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,644,678 for the Mark SPLASH DOWN; and
  10. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,040,689 for the Mark THE SUSTAINABLE KITCHEN.

Micro Dental Laboratories v. Richard Chiu, Individually and d/b/a Microdent Ceramics, Case No. 97-21032 RMW; United States District Court, Northern District of California – San Jose Division.

Trade Secret Misappropriation, Trademark Infringement.

Improved Piping Products Inc. v. Steve Yang, Catco LLC, et al.; Contra Costa County Superior Court.

Trade Secret Misappropriation.

Katrina Rozelle Pastries and Deserts v. Karen Del Bonta; Contra Costa County Superior Court.

Copyright/Trade Secrets

CopyPro, Inc. and WordTech Systems, Inc. v. Tiberiu Czente, et al.; Case No. C-96-03321; Contra Costa County, California Superior Court.

Trade Secret Misappropriation

Transworld Services, Inc. v. BioGenex Laboratories, Inc., Case No. CIVMSC00-04699, Superior Court for the State of California, Contra Costa County.

Defense/Counterclaim for trade debt issues relating to intellectual property licensing.

William M. Drake v. William Bruce Smith, Case No. 2:05-CV-01503 MCE PAN, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

Patent – Correction of Inventorship.

BioGenex Laboratories, Inc. v. Cell Marque Corporation, Case No. CV-99-3001 CW, U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.

Patent Infringement.

Intermotive, Inc. vs. InPower, LLC, Case No. 2:05-CV-00844-FCD-GG;, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

Patent Infringement.

CNI Manufacturing, Inc. vs Phil-Tite Enterprises and Phillip Smith; Case No. CV-01-4099 EDL ADR, U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Patent Infringement.

MIZUHO Orthopedic Systems, Inc. vs. Steris Corporation; Civil Action No. 3:13 – CV – 01077 JSW; U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Patent Infringement.

MIZUHO Orthopedic Systems, Inc. vs. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC, et al.; Civil Action No. 3:13 – CV – 01587 MMC; U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Patent Infringement.

National Upholstery Company v. Pat Kuleto Restaurant Development & Management Company, Patrick Kuleto, and International Upholstery Company; Case No. CV-02-4408 JL ADR; U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Patent Infringement.

Carver v. Velodyne Acoustics, Inc., Case Nos. C-00-1477L and C-00-1194L; U. S. District Court, Western District of Washington – Seattle Division.

Patent Infringement

Beta-Calco, Inc. vs. Scott Architectural Lighting and Scott Lamp Company, Inc.; Civil Action No. 5:13 – cv – 01543, JRA, Magistrate Judge Limbert; U. S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio – Eastern Division/Cleveland.

Patent Infringement

The Redd Group, LLC et al. vs. The Glass Guru Franchise Systems, Inc. and Daniel Frey; Civil Action No. 3:12 – CV – 04070 EJD; United States District Court, Northern District of California – San Jose Division.

Patent Infringement

Brass Smith, LLC vs. Advanced Design Manufacturing, LLC; Case No. CV10-04945 PSG (FFMX); United States District Court, Central District of California – Western Los Angeles Division.

Patent Infringement

In re U.S. Letters Patent of Steven Yatchak, Patent No. 6,588,863, Ex-parte Reexamination Application No.: 90/012,412, Patent Board of Appeals and Interferences, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Ex-parte Reexamination.

In re U.S. Letters Patent of Gregory E. Schafer, et al., Patent No. 6,594,565, Inter-partes Reexamination Application No.: 95/000,171, Patent Board of Appeals and Interferences, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Inter-partes Reexamination.

U. S. PATENT PROSECUTION
The following issued U. S. patents are representative of our patent prosecution services:

  1. U.S. Patent No. 7,148,443 for a Consumable Guide Tube;
  2. U.S. Patent No. 7,956,479 for Electrical Power Generation from Reciprocating Motion of Floats Caused by Waves;
  3. U.S. Patent No. 7,093803 for an Aerodynamic Wing;
  4. U.S. Patent No. 6,426,195 for Method for Silver Staining a Pathologic Sample;
  5. U.S. Patent No. 7,343,779 for High Performance, Hand-held Gas Chromatograph, Method and System;
  6. U.S. Patent No. 7,448,176 for Apparatus and System for Concrete Surface Repair and Method;
  7. U.S. Patent No. 6,621,420 for Device and Method for Integrated Wireless Transit and Emergency Vehicle Management;
  8. U.S. Patent No. 9,361,070 for Compiling Regular Expression Side-Effects to Java or C# Code;
  9. U.S. Patent No. 7,238,263 for Corrosion Tester; 
  10. U.S. Patent No. 7,921,613 for Terraced Structured Land Joint and Assembly System;
  11. U. S. Patent No. 11,928,949 for Phone Reminder Devices, Systems, and Methods;
  12. U. S. Patent No. 11,952,254 for Filling Station;
  13. U. S. Patent No. 11,890,920 for Soft Top Conversion Assemblies, Systems, and Methods;
  14. U. S. Patent No. 10,619,907 for Refrigerated, Thermally Insulated, Collapsible Cover System, Assemblies and Methods of Use to Transport Perishable Produce;
  15. U. S. Patent No. 11,947,368 for Apparatus, Systems, and Methods for Integrated Environmental Infant Pram, Pet Mat and Infant Footmuff;
  16. U. S. Patent No. 11,116,335 for ONDO Self-serve Food Locker Assemblies, Systems, and Methods;
  17. U. S. Patent No. 11,723,481 for ONDO Self-serve Food Locker Systems;
  18. U. S. Patent No. 11,090,796 for Drop Nipple Tool;
  19. U. S. Patent No. 11,007,400 for Convertible Furniture;
  20. U. S. Patent No. D1,006,573 for Drop Nipple Tool;
  21. U. S. Patent No. 11,040,665 for Concealed, Secure Storage Compartment;
  22. U. S. Patent No. 11,084,623 for Trackable Nylon Pallett and Collapsible Container;
  23. U. S. Patent No. 11,066,210 for Nylon Pallett;
  24. U. S. Patent No. 11,066,210 for Nylon Pallett; and
  25. U. S. Patent No. 9,469,261 for Can Network Spoofing.

Katrina Rozelle Pastries and Deserts v. Karen Del Bonta; Contra Costa County Superior Court.

Copyright/Trade Secrets

PROTECTING YOUR WORK IS ALL I DO.

WORK WITH ME