Lawyers

JAMES C. POTEPAN

Partner — Los Angeles

EXPERIENCE

James C. Potepan is a partner in Ropers Majeski’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice.  He heads an intellectual property litigation team based in the firm’s Los Angeles office that includes seven attorneys.  

Mr. Potepan’s practice focuses on complex business litigation with a major emphasis on intellectual property matters involving copyright, trademark, trade secret, right of publicity, franchise law, licensing and unfair competition issues.  He represents clients in a broad range of industries including consumer products, fashion, publishing, entertainment, education, and high technology.  With more than twenty years of experience litigating complex intellectual property matters, Mr. Potepan has resolved more than 200 intellectual property disputes.

Some of Mr. Potepan’s significant appellate matters include:  Comedy III Productions., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001), and Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F. 3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Mr. Potepan was recognized by California Super Lawyer magazine as a Super Lawyer in the area of intellectual property litigation in 2010 and 2011.

Mr. Potepan earned his J.D. from Loyola Law School.  

Some representative matters recently handled by Mr. Potepan include: 

Mr. Potepan represented an LSAT test preparation company as trial counsel in a three month jury trial in state court.  The dispute involved claims of trade secret misappropriation, breach of the duty of loyalty, and unfair competition. The plaintiff alleged that the clients, who were former employees, improperly used confidential information when starting a competing test-prep company. The plaintiff contended that the course materials used by the start-up was based on knowledge gained by the clients during their employment. Plaintiff requested $18 million in damages. The jury awarded less than 2% of the requested amount. Significantly, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction allowing the clients to continue use of the course materials.  The matter is currently on appeal. 

Mr. Potepan represented an internationally known fashion designer and his companies in an action in federal court in Los Angeles in which an artist claimed that more than 50% of the garments sold by the designer infringed his copyrighted designs.  Significant issues in the case included whether an oral license agreement permitted the designer to sublicense the subject works and whether the failure to prominently display the artist’s logo on each garment sold by the designer constituted an infringement of copyright or merely a breach of contract.  The artist demanded several million dollars to resolve the case.  Shortly before trial, the case settled on terms favorable to the client designer.  

Mr. Potepan represented a noted furniture designer in an action for trade secret misappropriation and trademark/trade dress infringement in a California state court.  The client went into partnership with another designer in order to market furniture.  After the parties had a falling-out, the client’s partner left the partnership and sued the client over issues related to the furniture designs.  After numerous efforts were made to resolve the case, the firm brought a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the client.  In granting the motion, the court found no evidence of trade secret misappropriation.  The court dismissed the remainder of the case on the first day of trial.