Kent R. Raygor

Kent Raygor, a partner in the Century City office, practices in the Business Trial, Intellectual Property, and Entertainment, Technology and Advertising groups.

Areas of Practice

• Complex business and constitutional law litigation: Complex litigation, including consumer class actions and multidistrict litigation (MDL), before state and federal trial courts around the country. High-tech patent litigation; federal and state constitutional litigation involving issues arising under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Reserved Powers Doctrine, Federal Preemption, and the Contracts, Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privacy provisions; corporate management and partnership disputes in the hedge fund, venture capital, banking, and other industries.
• Media law litigation, reputation management, and counseling: Emphasis on First Amendment, privacy, defamation, false advertising, contract, licensing, distribution, sponsorship, and right of publicity litigation, including numerous right of publicity and invasion of privacy cases defending clients against claims by celebrities such as Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Dianne Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Cameron Diaz, Audioslave, Weezer, Bruce Willis, Denzel Washington, Kate Hudson, Zooey Deschanel, and Sandra Bullock. Pre-publication clearance analyses for films, documentaries, screenplays, advertising, books, news, and digital content.
• Intellectual property litigation and counseling: Trademark, copyright, trade dress, trade secret, false advertising, patent, computer and internet litigation, and counseling in these areas.
• Appellate: Appellate matters before the California Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court, the Ninth and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.

Experience

ARBITRATION, MEDIATION, COMMUNITY

Certified:  International Commercial Arbitration, American University’s Washington College of Law, Center on International Commercial Arbitration (2024)

Certified:  Mediating the Litigated Case, Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine University, Pepperdine | Caruso School of Law (2021)

Mediator:  United States District Court for the Central District of California’s Mediator Panel (since 2021)

Mediator:  International Trademark Association’s Mediator Panel (2024)

Judge Pro Tem:  Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1996-2002)

Board of Directors:  Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA) (2006-2013)

REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION EXPERIENCE

Complex And Multidistrict Litigation

Litton Systems v. Honeywell
Defended Honeywell for over 11 years, resulting in a 3-month jury trial—the largest patent case in U.S. history at the time—involving thin film physics, laser optics, and materials science. The court declared Litton’s patent invalid after trial and overturned a $1.2 billion jury verdict, thus enabling Honeywell to continue its inertial navigation systems business. Following remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the court granted summary judgment in Honeywell’s favor on all remaining claims, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that no patent infringement had occurred. Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 1995 WL 366468 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 1996 WL 634213 (C.D. Cal. 1996); Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 87 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 118 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Honeywell, Inc. v. Litton Systems, Inc., 520 U.S. 1111 (1997); Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 140 F.3d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 145 F.3d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 238 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Gillette M3Power Advertising Class Actions
Defended Gillette in seven class actions before multiple U.S. District Courts. The plaintiffs asserted false advertising claims arising out of performance assertions in advertising for Gillette’s M3Power razor. Those cases, along with 23 similar class actions filed around the country, then were transferred to the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts for consolidated multidistrict litigation proceedings. In re M3Power Razor System Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 2007 WL 128846 (D. Mass. 2007).

In re The Gator Corporation Software Trademark & Copyright Litigation
Defended Gator (ska “Claria”) in a multidistrict litigation action in Atlanta, involving permission-based pop-up internet advertising targeting consumer interests exhibited through their web-surfing behaviors. The plaintiffs (UPS, Wells Fargo, Hertz, L.L. Bean, TigerDirect, Holiday Inn Hotels, Overstock.com, LendingTree, PriceGrabber, and others) argued that the delivery of such ads, even if consumers agreed to receive them, infringed the plaintiffs’ trademarks and copyrights and constituted unfair competition. The Hertz Corporation v. The Gator Corporation, 250 F. Supp. 2d 421 (D.N.J. 2003); In re The Gator Corporation Software Trademark & Copyright Litigation, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2003).

University of Southern California, Urban Partners v. Conquest Student Housing
Defended Conquest in ten suits with USC, developer Urban Partners, financier Blackstone Group, and Los Angeles property owners. USC and Urban asserted RICO, antitrust and tort claims, arguing that Conquest, by filing objections with the city and the courts to a planned development across the street from the University, unlawfully interfered with their business. Conquest filed an anti-SLAPP motion directed at USC’s attempt to bar Conquest and the public from exercising their First Amendment right to petition the City, the courts, and the public about development projects that violated environmental, health and safety, and zoning restrictions.

Starz Entertainment v. Buena Vista Television
Defended Buena Vista Television (Walt Disney Company) in a breach of contract action arising out of its electronic sale of Disney films through Apple’s iTunes. Starz asserted such sales breached its decades-long license agreement with Buena Vista that gave Starz the right to exhibit Disney films through subscription-based television services.

Boyle v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Digital Domain
Defended Twentieth Century Fox and Digital Domain, an Academy Award®-winning special effects house, in a patent infringement suit over the special effects in the film Titanic.

Northrop Grumman v. Siemens Audiologische Technik, Siemens Hearing Instruments, GN Resound, Oticon, Phonak, Widex Hearing Aid, et al.
Represented Northrop Grumman in a patent infringement action against leading hearing aid manufacturers.

Tavarua Island Resort, Fiji
Represented Tavarua Island Resort, the world’s top surf destination, in dealings with the Fijian government concerning access to the famous “Cloudbreak” reef and in a dispute with a shareholder for misappropriation of company assets and breach of his duty of loyalty to the company.

Michelle Pfeiffer, Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz, Diane Keaton, Mandy Moore, Kate Hudson v. Systemax, TigerDirect, CompUSA, Hewlett-Packard, Westinghouse Digital, Lenovo, Acer, Gateway, Logitech, et al.
Represented the defendants against right of publicity claims asserted by the listed celebrities arising from the use of movie stills to advertise the sale of home entertainment products, which showed characters the actors played in films.

Constitutional Law

Alliance of Los Angeles County Parents v. Los Angeles County Dep’t of Public Health
Won a trial for Los Angeles County that addressed an issue of first impression on free speech in California. Alliance, an association of mothers of children in LA County schools, challenged the County’s COVID mitigation policies and the Health Department’s decision to close its social media accounts to written public commentary. The court dismissed Alliance’s COVID mitigation claims, leaving the free speech claim to go to trial. Alliance claimed closing public commentary was an unconstitutional attempt to silence voices objecting to mask and vaccine mandates and that the County colluded with Rep. Adam Schiff’s office to shut down such voices on Twitter. The court rejected every argument presented by Alliance and found no free speech violation, no viewpoint discrimination, and no coercion of Twitter.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of Los Angeles
Defended Los Angeles County against tobacco manufacturer R.J. Reynolds’ claims that the County’s ban on selling flavored (including menthol-flavored) tobacco products, was preempted by the 2009 Tobacco Control Act. The court found that the County’s ordinance was not preempted and local governments had the right to regulate the sale of tobacco products for public health and other local concerns. The Ninth Circuit affirmed and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear R.J. Reynolds’ appeal. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of Los Angeles, et al., 471 F. Supp. 3d 1010 (C.D. Cal. 2020), aff’d, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. County of Los Angeles, 29 F.4^th 542 (9^th Cir. 2022); cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 979 (Nov. 29, 2023).

Gregory B. Smith, The Churchill Institute, Inc. v. Aaron Supple, et al.
A Trinity professor and an institute he formed sued five Trinity College students for defamation. The professor and institute espoused ideologies based on perceived racism against white people. The students published a parody article in the student newspaper making fun of the professor, and posted flyers on campus quoting his own words back to him: “the new racism is every bit as ugly as the old”. We represented the students. Under a new Connecticut statute, the students filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which was denied. The Connecticut Supreme Court intervened and took up the case to determine whether denial of an anti-SLAPP motion was immediately appealable. It held it was, finding that, if not, aggrieved persons like these students would be forced to litigate the entire case before they could appeal, thereby denying them their free speech, due process, and association rights. Smith, et al. v. Supple, et al., 346 Conn. 928 (S. Ct. Conn. 2023).

Guilfoyle, et al. v. Los Angeles Unified School District; County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health
Defended Los Angeles County’s COVID-19 policy requiring masks, PCR testing, and contact tracing for students and school staff as a condition for in-person learning at public schools. Parents asserted Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection, Unlawful Search and Seizure, Free School, and Privacy claims. The court rejected every argument asserted by plaintiffs and rejected in its entirety the declaration plaintiffs submitted from Paul E. Alexander, a professed epidemiologist and immunologist who was part of former President Trump’s Department of Health & Human Services. Guilfoyle, et al. v. Beutner, et al., 2021 WL 6102512 (C.D. Cal. 2021); Guilfoyle, et al. v. Beutner, et al., 2021 WL 4594780 (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Emily Wolfe v. County of Los Angeles, et al.
Defended Los Angeles County. Plaintiff applied to work as a poll worker for the election but professed to have religious, political, and medical objections to being vaccinated against COVID-19. Vaccination is a requirement for all poll workers, so the County denied her application. Plaintiff argued she was being discriminated against. The court dismissed all claims, finding that getting a vaccine is not inherently expressive conduct, a vaccination requirement is viewpoint neutral, getting vaccinated and disclosing vaccination status does not occur in the polling place and therefore voting rights were not violated, and imposing a vaccine requirement has long been held to fall within a government’s legitimate police power to protect public health.

LA County Free Foundation (683 Firefighters) v. County of Los Angeles
Defended Los Angeles County. 683 firefighters and other County Fire Department employees sued the County, alleging its vaccine mandate violated their privacy and due process rights. The federal court dismissed the case without leave to amend. LA County Free Foundation (683 Firefighters) v. County of Los Angeles, 2022 WL 18278624, (C.D. Cal. 2022); LA County Free Foundation (683 Firefighters) v. County of Los Angeles, 2022 WL 18278626, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Khanthaphixay, et al. v. Loyola Marymount University; County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health
Defended Los Angeles County in a case filed by filed by students at Loyola Marymount University who objected to school policies requiring COVID-19 vaccinations, mask wearing, testing, and PCR test data collection as a condition for in-person learning. The students asserted Religious, Medical Condition, and Privacy claims. The court found that there was no state action supporting the students’ claims and dismissed the case. Khanthaphixay v. Loyola Marymount University, et al., 2021 WL 4025796 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021).

Human Rights Defense Center v. County of Los Angeles
Defended Los Angeles County, County Sheriff McDonnell, and the Men’s Central Jail against First Amendment and Civil Rights claims asserted by a prisoner rights organization that claimed the County was censoring mail addressed to inmates. Defeated the request for a preliminary injunction and won a dismissal of claims. Human Rights Defense Center v. County of Los Angeles, 2017 WL 6523442 (N.D. Cal. 2017); Human Rights Defense Center v. County of Los Angeles, 2017 WL 10402603 (N.D. Cal. 2017).

Lennar Homes v. Community Redevelopment Agency
Represented Lennar against a Redevelopment Agency concerning a conflict between the Reserved Powers Doctrine and the Contracts Clause. The tension between those provisions created a problem when, after creating vested rights through an enforceable development agreement, a municipality enacted ordinances purportedly rendering the development unlawful.

CLP Investment v. United States of America; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Represented a developer in an Equal Protection violation action against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning bad-faith and discriminatory conduct in connection with repeated and pretextual refusals to confirm that a residential project complied with flowage easements and related rights in favor of the U.S.

Brad Pitt v. Playgirl
Defended a magazine in a First Amendment and Right to Privacy case following its republication of nude photographs of Brad Pitt and Gwyneth Paltrow taken by a paparazzo while they were on vacation, which other European tabloids had previously published.

José Solano v. Playgirl
First Amendment and Right to Privacy. A former Baywatch actor sued because client Playgirl had used his headshot in an article (which included no nudity) about ten male actors in Hollywood and used his publicity still on the cover. The actor argued he suffered a privacy invasion because the magazine’s content placed him in a false light. The court granted judgment in favor of the magazine and ordered the actor to pay its attorneys’ fees. That decision, however, then was reversed and remanded in Solano v. Playgirl, 292 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002), after which the case settled.

Jennifer Aniston v. Man’s World Publications
Defended magazines in a First Amendment, Right to Privacy, and right of publicity case filed by Jennifer Aniston over the publication of a topless photograph, ending in a settlement on the first day of trial.

People v. Martin Scorsese, Universal/MCA Pictures, Cineplex Odeon
Represented Martin Scorsese, Universal/MCA, and Cineplex Odeon in First Amendment cases around the country, successfully blocking attempts to censor the 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ from exhibition under blasphemy, picketing, obscenity, and other laws.

Microsoft Corporation v. CNET News.com
Defended CNET in a First Amendment and Journalist’s Privilege dispute over Microsoft’s attempt to discover the identity of confidential sources who had obtained Bill Gates’ e-mail files.

Dennis Price v. County of Los Angeles
Defended Los Angeles County against claims that curfew orders issued for public safety shortly after George Floyd’s death in May 2020 violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment right to speak by prohibiting him from protesting at night, his freedom of movement under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and his Fourteenth Amendment right of Due Process. The court held that the curfew orders were made necessary for the protection of life and property in an emergency, expired by their own terms, were not likely to be reinstated, did not have a disparate impact on any particular part of the community, and did not unduly interfere with any First Amendment right as the curfew was only in effect at night. The court dismissed the entire case. Price v. County of Los Angeles, et al., 504 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Trademark

Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather, Oygur
Won a jury verdict for Deckers, the maker of UGG® footwear, against Australian defendants who sold sheepskin boots in the U.S. they labeled “UGG” and were indistinguishable from products covered by Deckers’ design patents. The defendants argued that “ugg” was generic in Australia for sheepskin boots and among surfers in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s, and Deckers therefore could not use it as a trademark. If successful, the defendants would have wiped out a billion-dollar brand. The jury found the defendants guilty of willful infringement and counterfeiting. The court then awarded Deckers $2 million for its attorneys’ fees. Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather, et al., 2017 WL 365555 (N.D. Ill. 2017); Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather, et al., 340 F. Supp. 3d 706 (N.D. Ill. 2018); Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather, et al., 2020 WL 4723980 (N.D. Ill. 2020); aff’d, Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather, et al., 847 Fed. Appx. 917 (Fed. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 587 (2021).

Scat Enterprises, Inc. v. FCA US LLC
Defended Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in a trademark infringement action filed by an automotive aftermarket performance parts manufacturer who complained that the Dodge line of iconic muscle cars marketed under the “Scat Pack” trademark in 1968-1971 and relaunched for 2013 Dodge Challenger and Charger models infringed its “Scat” trademark used for crankshafts, connecting rods, and rotating assemblies. Won summary judgment for Fiat Chrysler on all claims. Scat Enterprises, Inc. v. FCA US LLC, 2017 WL 5896182 (C.D. Cal. 2017); Scat Enterprises, Inc. v. FCA US LLC, 2017 WL 5749771 (C.D. Cal. 2017).

Hasbro, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment
Won a trial for MGA (creator of Bratz® dolls) against claims that its Spider-Man & Friends 3-D Memory Match-Up game infringed Hasbro’s rights in a card-matching game it had marketed as “Memory” since 1966. The court found that MGA had shown that, despite Hasbro’s 40 years marketing the game, claimed $130,000,000 in sales and an incontestable trademark registration, the term “memory” was generic for this type of game and could not function as a trademark. Hasbro, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, 497 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D.R.I. 2007).

Research In Motion (BlackBerry) v. Samsung
Defended Samsung against trademark infringement claims asserted by RIM, which claimed that Samsung’s “BlackJack” and “Black Carbon” smartphones infringed RIM’s trademark rights in the term “BlackBerry”.

Al Capp Enterprises v. The Walt Disney Company, ABC
Defended Disney and ABC in a trademark suit filed by the owner of rights to the L’il Abner comic strip against claims that references in the 2001-2004 Lizzie McGuire television series to “Sadie Hawkins Day” and “Sadie Hawkins Dance” infringed various trademark rights. Won a dismissal of the entire action.

Fuel Design v. Fox Extreme Sports Network
Fuel Clothing Company v. Fuel TV
Defended Fox Cable in two trademark suits filed by companies using the name “Fuel” (one a broadcast design company and the other an action sports clothing company) who complained about Fox’s new 24/7 action sports network, Fuel TV.

Copyright

Mondane v. Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Rainforest Films
Streat v. Rainforest Films, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Defended Screen Gems, Sony, and Rainforest in two copyright infringement and idea submission cases, one over the 2007 film Stomp The Yard, and the other the 2005 film The Gospel.

Luvdarts v. AT&T Mobility, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Spectrum, T-Mobile
Defended Sprint in a suit by Luvdarts, creator of audiovisual greeting cards. Luvdarts asserted that the wireless carriers committed copyright infringement by providing the means for peer-to-peer delivery of MMS content. It argued that the carriers had a duty and ability to supervise infringement over their networks, failed to implement a digital rights management system to prevent infringement, and induced, caused or contributed to infringement by consumers using those networks. Sprint and the other carriers successfully moved to dismiss. Luvdarts LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC; et al., 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1277 (C.D. Cal. 2011), aff’d, Luvdarts, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC; et al., 710 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2013).

iKindi v. STW Fixed Income Management
Represented STW in copyright and breach of contract claims against a software systems engineering company that developed software and database management tools for STW.

Flying Mallard Productions, Gurney, Delaney v. ESPN
Defended ESPN in a trademark, idea submission, and right of publicity suit filed by two actors over ESPN’s prime-time reality series, Totally Hooked, which the plaintiffs alleged appropriated their ideas and format for a series, Fish On!, earlier aired by ESPN. Defeated an injunction aimed at barring the airing of the series.

Right Of Publicity

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Denzel Washington v. Fry’s Electronics
Defended Fry’s, a consumer electronics retailer, in a right of publicity suit filed by the three actors, who claimed that the use of movie stills showing characters from their films in depictions of televisions in newspaper ads promoting the sale of DVDs of their films infringed their publicity rights.

Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston v. Casa Damiani
Defended Damiani, an Italian jewelry house, against right of publicity claims by Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston over their wedding jewelry, which Pitt claimed to have designed and Damiani produced.

Chris Cornell, et al. [“Audioslave”] v. Miller Brewing Company, Young & Rubicam
Rivers Cuomo, et al. [“Weezer”] v. Miller Brewing Company, Young & Rubicam
Defended Miller Brewing in right of publicity and false endorsement suits filed by the bands Audioslave and Weezer over an advertisement in Rolling Stone magazine celebrating 50 years of rock history. The ad’s background consisted of a collage of many ticket stubs for rock shows covering a 32-year time span, two of which were for Audioslave and Weezer shows.

Catherine Zeta-Jones v. Caudalíe, Neiman Marcus, Turnberry Estates
Defended Caudalíe, a French cosmetics company, in a right of publicity and false designation of origin suit filed by Catherine Zeta-Jones arising from Caudalíe’s reference in marketing materials to reports Zeta-Jones had purchased and used Caudalíe products.

Noah Johnson v. Hurley International
Won a trial for Hurley, the designer and wholesaler of HURLEY® brand clothing, against right of publicity, breach of contract and false endorsement claims asserted by one of Hurley’s sponsored professional surfers. Johnson v. Hurley International, 77 Fed. Appx. 412 (9th Cir. 2003).

Zooey Deschanel v. Kohl’s Department Stores
Defended Kohl’s against right of publicity claims asserted by actress Zooey Deschanel concerning a line of shoes created by Steve Madden for Kohl’s called the “Zooey” style shoe.

Trade Secret

Virun, Inc. v. Cymbiotika LLC, et al.
Represented Virun, a nutritional supplements manufacturer, which made supplements for a former customer, Cymbiotika. After Cymbiotika launched a line of products manufactured by Virun competitors, Virun sued Cymbiotika for misappropriating Virun’s trade secret formulas. After two years of hard-fought litigation and depositions, the matter settled with Cymbiotika agreeing to acknowledge Virun’s trade secrets and source all of its products for international marketing from Virun.

C.R. Laurence Co., Inc. v. Frameless Hardware Company, et al.
Represented Frameless Hardware Company. It and CRL compete in providing hardware for use with architectural glass used in building exteriors, interior glass walls, shower doors, and other applications. FHC was formed by former CRL employees who left after dissatisfaction with the way CRL was being run. In 2021, CRL sued FHC for trade secret misappropriation. CRL ultimately dismissed its claims in 2024. 

Quarterdeck Office Systems v. Wollongong
Represented Quarterdeck against former employees who misappropriated software code for an internet browser. Conducted a search and seizure of the purloined software in conjunction with law enforcement agencies who raided the offices of the competitor to whom the employees had brought the stolen code.

Sysco Food Services
Harbor Truck Bodies
Represented Sysco and Harbor in separate actions involving managers and executives who left with company trade secrets and moved to their chief competitors.

Litton Systems v. Sundstrand
Defended Sundstrand against trade secret misappropriation claims involving ring laser gyroscope-based inertial navigation systems for aircraft.

McDonnell Douglas v. Northrop
Defended Northrop against trade secret misappropriation claims involving misappropriation of technology used for the avionics and “heads-up display” for the F-18 fighter aircraft.

Patent

C.R. Laurence Co., Inc. v. Frameless Hardware Company, et al.
Represented Frameless Hardware Company. It and CRL compete in providing hardware for use in connection with architectural glass used in building exteriors, interior glass walls, shower doors, and other applications. In 2021, CRL sued FHC for infringement of a patent for a way of securing removable glass panels. FHC filed two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in the Patent Office. On July 5, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the petitions, finding that the primary claims of the patent asserted against by CRL against FHC are unpatentable, wiping out the core of CRL’s patent claims. Frameless Hardware Co. LLC v. C.R. Laurence Co. Inc., Case No. IPR2022-00356, slip op. (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2022).

Water Fun Products v. Proslide Technology
Won summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendant Proslide. The plaintiff asserted patent infringement claims over a design for a funnel-like water slide commonly found at water amusement parks. Water Fun Products Corp. v. Proslide Technology, Inc., 2005 WL 6219200 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Water Fun Products Corp. v. Proslide Technology, Inc., 2006 WL 5720347 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

Litton Systems v. Honeywell (described above).

Boyle v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Digital Domain (described above).

Northrop Grumman v. Siemens Audiologische Technik, Siemens Hearing Instruments, GN Resound, Oticon, Phonak, Widex Hearing Aid, et al. (described above).

Other Media, Entertainment Cases

Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association v. City of Pasadena
Defended the City of Pasadena against contract, trademark, and other claims asserted by the Tournament, which puts on the College Football Playoff semifinal game in the city’s Rose Bowl stadium every January 1. Less than two weeks before the 2021 game, the Tournament declared a force majeure event and unilaterally announced the game was being moved to AT&T Stadium in Texas. The stated pretext was that Pasadena was too COVID-dangerous, yet Texas somehow was safer. The Tournament also sued the city for infringement of the Tournament’s “Rose Bowl Game” trademark. The court rejected each claim and dismissed the lawsuit. The court then awarded the city its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the suit. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Ass’n v. City of Pasadena, 2021 WL 3553499 (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Lutz v. Rakuten Baseball, Inc.; Rakuten, Inc.
Defended Rakuten Baseball and Rakuten, Inc.’s CEO against fraud claims. The Tohoku Rakuten Golden Eagles, a professional baseball club in Sendai, Japan, hired Lutz from the New York Mets to play for the Eagles’ 2014 season. He played 15 games before he was injured and returned to the U.S. for surgery. Despite negotiations for the 2015 season, Lutz never provided an all-clear medical report and he was let go. Lutz asserted that the defendants were subject to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania because Rakuten is at the apex of a global “ecosystem” that targets consumers all over the globe, including Pennsylvania. The court rejected that argument and dismissed the claims. Lutz v. Rakuten, Inc., et al., 376 F. Supp. 3d 455 (E.D. Pa. 2019).

Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital
Represented a hospital director in a landmark defamation and judicial proceedings privilege case. Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital, 217 Cal. App. 3d 796 (1990).

KDN Sports, Don Nomura
Represented KDN Sports and its sports agent Don Nomura in connection with antitrust, defamation, and RICO claims arising out of contracts with Dominican and Japanese baseball players (Hideo Nomo, Robinson Checo, Alfonso Soriano, and others) and attempts by the U.S. Commissioner of Baseball to keep them from playing in the U.S.

Steinberg Moorad & Dunn, Inc. v. David Dunn, Athletes First
Defended agent and manager defendants against RICO, breach of contract, and trade secret claims filed by Leigh Steinberg’s sports agency against employees who left the agency to set up a competing agency. Won summary judgment on the trade secret claim. Steinberg Moorad & Dunn, Inc. v. Dunn, et al., 2002 WL 31968234 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Steinberg Moorad & Dunn, Inc. v. Dunn, et al., 136 Fed. Appx. 6 (9th Cir. 2005).

Counseling

Advertising Advice
Counseled Fox Sports, Fuel TV, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, MillerCoors, Gillette, ESPN, Herbalife, 3 Day Blinds, USBank, Cisco, advertising agencies, and many others in connection with proposed or already published advertising, aimed at avoiding legal liability or governmental sanctions.

Anti-Piracy Enforcement
Represented News Corp’s Star TV and others in stopping piracy of its television programming through internet streaming in India and elsewhere.

U.S. Olympic Committee
Counseled an internationally recognized client, which had endorsement deals with several athletes who participated in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, about avoiding claims from the USOC over allegedly infringing and improperly using USOC trademarks.

Title And Trademark Clearance Analyses And Opinions
Performed numerous title and trademark clearance analyses and litigation avoidance opinions for Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Cable, Sony Pictures Entertainment, StudioCanal, Focus Features, Overture Films, Lions Gate Entertainment, and many other studios involving broadcast and cable, television, film, website, and digital properties.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Advised Mobile Messenger, Jamdat, Sprint, Samsung, and many others in the wireless and internet industries concerning DMCA compliance and safe harbors.

Honors

“Leaders of Influence: Top Litigators and Trial Lawyers”, Los Angeles Business Journal (2022)

“Media Lawyer of the Year”, Best Lawyers (2020)

“Best Lawyers in America in Media Law”, Best Lawyers (2019-2021, 2023-2024)

“Most Influential IP Lawyers in Los Angeles”, Los Angeles Business Journal (August 2017)

“Litigation Star”, Benchmark Litigation (2009)

“Film, Music, Theater & Television - Advice to Corporates”, Legal 500 (2009)

“Intellectual Property: Copyright”, Legal 500 (2014)

“Top 10 Entertainment IP Lawyers” in California, Los Angeles Daily Journal (April 2008)

“Super Lawyer, Intellectual Property Litigation”, Los Angeles Magazine (2006-2013, 2015-2024)

Digital rights management and digital convergence expertise, Los Angeles Business Journal, “Who’s Who In Law—Intellectual Property” issue (2006)

Articles

• K. Raygor and B. Graveline, “Experts” chapter, Trade Secret Litigation & Protection: A Practice Guide to the DTSA and the CUTSA (Intellectual Property Section of the California Lawyers Association, 2022) 
• K. Raygor and L. Petrich, Media Libel Law, Survey Of California Libel Law (Oxford University Press, 2012-2021)
• K. Raygor and V. Alter,  Media Libel Law, Ninth Circuit Fumbles The Ball In Videogame Likeness Cases, 82 U.S. Law Week, at 364 (Bloomberg BNA, Sept. 10, 2013)
• K. Raygor (co-author), California State Antitrust And Unfair Competition Law, Chapter 12, "State Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property"(Matthew Bender, 2009, 2010, 2012)
• K. Raygor and E. Komen, Limitations On Copyright Protection For Format Ideas In Reality Television Programming, Media Law Resource Center Bulletin, Issue No. 4, at 97-121 (December 2009)
• K. Raygor and V. Alter, Fair Use And The Right Of Publicity: A Search For A More Balanced Approach, Media Law Resource Center Bulletin, Issue No. 4, at 129-147 (December 2008)
• K. Raygor and B. Bakhtari, Great Success! 'Borat's' Release Agreement Averts Liability, New York Law Journal (July 16, 2008)
• K. Raygor and V. Alter, It's Not Just Make-Believe Anymore: Fantasy Baseball And The Right Of Publicity, ABA Media, Privacy And Defamation Law Committee Newsletter (ABA, Winter/Spring 2008)
• K. Raygor, Perfect 10 Scores A Not-So-Perfect Rating By The Ninth Circuit, MediaLawLetter (Media Law Resource Center, May 2007)
• K. Raygor and D. Ryan, The Cost of Protecting California's Royalty: Assault Liability Under the Anti-Paparazzi Act, MediaLawLetter (Media Law Resource Center, January 2006)
• K. Raygor, Sanitizing Hollywood: The Family Entertainment And Copyright Act Of 2005, MediaLawLetter (Media Law Resource Center, May 2005)

Media Mentions

Speaking Engagements

• K. Raygor, In the Hot Seat: How the First Amendment is Shaping Today’s Conversations, presented in Los Angeles (February 10, 2024)
• K. Raygor, The Presumption of Irreparable Harm: Don't Stop Believing, presented at the International Trademark Association annual meeting, Hong Kong (May 2014)
• K. Raygor, The Perils Of Being Social In A Social Media World, presented in Los Angeles (July 16, 2013)
• K. Raygor, Pirates Of The Internet: Protecting The Rights Of Content Creators, presented to The Caucus For Producers, Writers & Directors (February 28, 2012)
• K. Raygor and G. Clark, Recent Significant Changes In Intellectual Property Law, presented for The Seminar Group (January 14, 2011)
• K. Raygor, Sex, Minors And Videotape, presented at the Donald E. Biederman Entertainment & Media Law Institute (January 14, 2010)
• K. Raygor, The Right Of Publicity, presented to the Sports & Entertainment Law Society of the University of La Verne College of Law (April 2, 2009)
• K. Raygor, Protection Of Celebrity Rights: What You Need To Know Now, presented at the USC Gould School of Law - Beverly Hills Bar Association 2008 Institute on Entertainment Law and Business (October 18, 2008)
• K. Raygor and E. Komen, Hollywood Clearances, presented in Los Angeles (November 15, 2007)
• K. Raygor and G. Cummins, Privacy—Misappropriation/Right Of Publicity, presented in Los Angeles (July 21, 2006)
• K. Raygor and J. Bassett, Trademark Clearance Boot Camp, presented in Los Angeles (June 23, 2006)
• K. Raygor, Surviving The Matrix: Legal Pitfalls Of Blurring Fact And Fiction, presented at the Donald E. Biederman Entertainment & Media Law Institute (January 26, 2006)

Events

Memberships

Media Law Resource Center (MLRC)

Los Angeles Copyright Society

American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)

International Trademark Association (INTA) since 1987. Member of the: U.S. Legislation Committee (1990-1995 and 1999-2002); Trademark Reporter Committee (2008-2011); Editorial Board Committee (2008-2011); Geographical Indications Subcommitee (2014-2015); Emerging Issues Committee (2020-2021); Embargoes, Sanctions and Treaty Compliance Subcommittee (2020-2021)

American Bar Association (ABA)

State Bar of California (Intellectual Property Section)