Aspex Eyewear, Inc. et al. v. Levente Tibor Laczay

I'll research this case to build a well-sourced overview. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Now let me dig into the related case and the specific docket details.

Case Overview: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. et al. v. Levente Tibor Laczay, No. 0:09-cv-60488 (S.D. Fla.)

Parties. The plaintiffs are two affiliated operating companies in the magnetic-eyewear business, not a litigation-only shell. Contour Optik, Inc. is the patent-holding side of the enterprise (the Federal Circuit has described Contour as the assignee of the family's patents, whose sole named inventor was Richard Chao), and Aspex Eyewear, Inc. is the U.S. distributor/enforcement arm — the S.D.N.Y. court in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), found Aspex acted as an exclusive licensee/sublicensee and Chic's U.S. distributor, with the two companies family-owned and closely linked. That standing issue mattered: several district courts (D. Nev., C.D. Cal.) dismissed Aspex-only claims for lack of standing under the "Chic-Aspex Agreement," while S.D.N.Y. and the Federal Circuit allowed them to proceed on an implied-license theory. The defendant, Levente Tibor Laczay, is the individual identified in contemporaneous company statements as the Chief Executive Officer of Zenni Optical, the direct-to-consumer/online prescription-eyewear retailer, and the named CEO spokesperson in Zenni's 2013 press release announcing its Federal Circuit win against Aspex. Notably, this docket names only Laczay personally — no corporate co-defendant appears — which is consistent with an early, entity-plus-principal pressure filing rather than a merits campaign. (The complaint itself is not available in the free sources I checked, so I cannot verify the theory of individual liability or the specific accused products as pleaded in this docket.)

Patent asserted and accused technology. The docket lists a single patent: U.S. Patent No. 5,737,054 ("the '054 patent"), asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 145 with a Form AO 120 patent report sent to the USPTO. The '054 patent is a member of the Contour/Aspex magnetic clip-on family (issued in the 1998 number series, so a mid-1990s priority — I did not independently verify the exact filing/issue dates). Claim 1, as quoted in the S.D. Fla. Markman orders in the parallel Aspex v. Designers Eyewear Studio and Aspex v. Altair cases, covers an eyeglass device with (i) a primary spectacle frame having a first magnetic member secured in the middle bridge portion, and (ii) an auxiliary frame whose bridge has a projection extending over the primary bridge carrying a mating second magnet, "allowing said auxiliary spectacle frame to be attached to said primary spectacle frame with only one hand by a user." In plain terms: bridge-mounted magnets for snap-on auxiliary/sunglass lenses — a different design axis from the side-extension magnets in the sibling patents (the '811 patent's non-parallel coupling surface, and the '896 patent's bridge cavity/protrusion interlock), and from the top-mounted side-extension design of the reissue '545 patent. The accused technology in the related Zenni litigation was rimless magnetic clip-on/snap-on sunglass lenses; Zenni's CEO described the products as "magnetic snap-on sunshades." I could not verify from a free source which specific Zenni SKUs were accused in this particular dismissed case.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed April 2, 2009 in the Southern District of Florida (Broward County) before Judge William J. Zloch, with referral to then-Magistrate Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum (later a district judge and, since 2023, an Eleventh Circuit judge). The docket shows a thin, short life: complaint and summons; service not executed until August 10, 2009; a show-cause order from Judge Zloch on August 17, 2009 (DE 4) after the four-month service delay; Aspex's response (DE 6); a motion to quash service by defendant's counsel Joseph Rodman Steele, Jr. (DE 9, Aug. 28); and a Final Order of Dismissal without Prejudice signed by Judge Zloch on September 4, 2009 (DE 10) — five months after filing. There was no claim construction, no merits ruling, and no finding of infringement or invalidity in this case; plaintiff's counsel of record was Arie Mrejen. The case is notable mainly as the precursor to the follow-on action, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. et al. v. Laczay, No. 0:09-cv-61468-WJZ (S.D. Fla., filed Sept. 17, 2009, closed Mar. 24, 2014) — the same plaintiffs and the same forum and judge, but styled in the Federal Circuit as Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, LLC, 713 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2013) (No. 2012-1318). That case produced one of the leading collateral-estoppel decisions in patent law: because Aspex had fully litigated "retaining mechanism" (construed to require rims) against Altair Eyewear and Altair's rimless clip-ons were materially indistinguishable from Zenni's, Aspex was precluded from relitigating the '811 and '896 infringement claims, and the asserted '054 claim (claim 1) had already been held invalid for obviousness on remand, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012). District citations: Zenni I, No. 09-cv-61468, ECF No. 195 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2012) (report and recommendation); Zenni II, ECF No. 206 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2012). Zenni's counsel included J. Rodman Steele (Duane Morris) — the same attorney who moved to quash service here, which corroborates that Laczay and Zenni were the same interest. The dismissed case thus sits at the front edge of an unusually broad magnetic-eyewear enforcement campaign by Aspex/Contour against Altair, Zenni, Clariti (equitable estoppel win, Fed. Cir. 2009), E'Lite, Concepts in Optics, Revolution Eyewear, Designers Eyewear Studio, and Marchon; the Zenni appeal drew commentary for the proposition that asserting new claims containing a previously construed limitation does not create a new "issue" to defeat preclusion (see Lexology, April 24, 2013; FindLaw summary; IP Today, April 24, 2013). IPR linkage: none identified. The '054 patent predates the AIA, the 2009 case was dismissed before IPR practice existed (IPRs began Sept. 16, 2012), and I found no PTAB proceeding on the '054 patent. A fee-shifting-era citation to No. 0:09-cv-61468 appears in a 2014 FCBA fee-shifting paper, suggesting post-judgment fee litigation in the follow-on case, but I did not verify that outcome. Caveats: judge/party fields in aggregators (UniCourt, Justia dockets) list both Zloch and Rosenbaum, and Justia's docket for the '61468 case lists "Laczay" as defendant even though the Federal Circuit caption names Zenni Optical, LLC; I could not reconcile that from a primary PACER pull, and some details above rest on docket aggregators and secondary press rather than the pleadings themselves.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with the docket and basic case information.

Let me dig into the docket details, the related follow-on case, and the PTAB/patent history.

Aspex Eyewear, Inc. et al. v. Levente Tibor Laczay, No. 0:09-cv-60488 (S.D. Fla.)

Sourcing note up front

The public record for this specific docket (0:09-cv-60488) is thin: the case lived only five months on the docket and produced no opinion, no Markman order, and no merits ruling. What follows reconstructs the docket from the UniCourt docket recap and the Justia dockets entry for 0:09-cv-60488, and situates it against the substantive companion/refiled action, No. 0:09-cv-61468, which is where the real litigation occurred. I flag below where I am inferring rather than reading a document.

---

1. Parties, counsel, and procedural posture

Critical contextual point: Laczay was not a random defendant — he is the principal of Zenni Optical, and this suit is one thread in Aspex/Contour's multi-front enforcement campaign over its magnetic clip-on eyewear family ('054, '811, '896, and '545/'747 patents) against Altair, Zenni, E'Lite, Clariti, Miracle Optics, Marchon, Avalon, and Designer's Eyewear Studio.

---

2. Chronology of this docket (0:09-cv-60488)

2009-04-02 — Complaint filed (D.E. 1). Filed against Laczay alone; $350 filing fee (Receipt 545895). Asserted the '054 patent. Form AO 120 sent to the PTO (D.E. 3), and summons issued (D.E. 2).

⚠️ No answer and no counterclaims appear on this docket. Unlike the earlier Aspex v. Altair case in S.D.N.Y. (where Altair answered in Sept. 2002 and pleaded counterclaims), Laczay never answered here — the case was gone before his answer deadline matured in any operative sense.

April–August 2009 — ~4½ months of apparent inactivity. The complaint sat unserved. That gap triggered judicial attention.

2009-08-17 — Order to Show Cause (D.E. 4). Judge Zloch ordered plaintiffs to show cause, with a response due at noon on 2009-08-20. This is the classic S.D. Fla. / Rule 4(m) service-lapse show-cause procedure.

2009-08-20 — Response to Order to Show Cause (D.E. 6) filed by Aspex; accompanied by an Acknowledgment of Service (D.E. 5).

Service date — 2009-08-10. The Summons Returned Executed (D.E. 7, re-docketed by the clerk from D.E. 5 after a "wrong event selected" notice at D.E. 8 on 2009-08-24) reflects that Laczay was served on 2009-08-10, answer due 2009-08-31. So plaintiffs served the defendant after the OSC issued but back-dated the return to 8/10 — precisely the kind of service-timing problem that drives a motion to quash.

2009-08-28 — Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint (D.E. 9), with Exhibit 1. Filed by Steele. This is the only substantive defensive filing on the docket, and the last party filing before termination.

2009-09-04 — Final Order of Dismissal without Prejudice (D.E. 10), signed by Judge Zloch. The court never ruled on the motion to quash (no order resolving D.E. 9 appears on the docket), which is consistent with a dismissal without prejudice that mooted the service dispute rather than adjudicating it.

Final disposition of this case: dismissal without prejudice, 2009-09-04 — i.e., no adjudication on the merits, no claim construction, no discovery, no judgment, no fees motion, no appeal. The dismissal was functionally a voluntary-withdrawal-by-court-order that cleared the docket for the refiled action.

---

3. Pre-trial motions of substance in this case

Chronologically, only three:

1. Order to Show Cause (D.E. 4, 2009-08-17) — court-initiated; procedural, aimed at the service default.
2. Plaintiffs' Response (D.E. 6, 2009-08-20) — procedural.
3. Defendant's Motion to Quash Service (D.E. 9, 2009-08-28) — the sole substantive defense motion; never decided.

There were no motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b), no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR (impossible in 2009 — inter partes review did not exist until the AIA took effect 2012-09-16), no summary judgment motion, no Markman proceeding, no discovery motions, and no trial. The case never reached claim construction or expert practice.

---

4. Claim construction, discovery, trial — none occurred here

• Markman: none in 60488. Claim construction of the '054 "frame" limitation was litigated in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., see the 2005-09-09 Markman opinion (S.D.N.Y., Judge Robinson) and the 2006-12-22 Designer's Eyewear Studio order, and later in the 2011-03-31 Markman hearing in the Altair remand (818 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Mass. 2011)). None of this claim-construction history belongs to 60488.
• Discovery: none of record in 60488.
• Trial/verdict/post-trial motions: none.

---

5. The refiled companion action — where the case was actually decided

Three weeks after the dismissal, plaintiffs refiled: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. et al. v. Laczay, No. 0:09-cv-61468 (S.D. Fla., filed 2009-09-17, Ft. Lauderdale Office, Judge Zloch, Mag. Rosenbaum) — same parties, same counsel, cause of action styled "willful patent infringement," and now asserting the full family: '054, '811, and '896. This is the case that went to judgment. It closed 2014-03-24. Because it is the substantive continuation of 60488 and the source of every meaningful legal development, it must be covered:

Holding of 713 F.3d 1377 (the operative merits outcome for the Aspex–Laczay/Zenni dispute): Applying Eleventh Circuit preclusion law (Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1339 (11th Cir. 2000)) and Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979), the court held that Aspex was collaterally estopped. Key language: "[i]t is the issues litigated, not the specific claims around which the issues were framed, that is determinative," and the assertion of different claims and additional claim terms "does not create a new 'issue' to defeat preclusion." Every claim asserted against Zenni carried the same dispositive "retaining mechanism" limitation construed to require rims or their equivalents; the Zenni products were rimless and materially identical to Altair's; the '054 claim was already invalid for obviousness. Result: no infringement of '811/'896; invalidity of '054 claim 1; judgment for Zenni/Laczay.

I note a date discrepancy in the secondary press: one Zenni press item says the Federal Circuit ruled "on April 19," while some case-report metadata lists 713 F.3d 1377 with an April 2013 date — the Finnegan Last Month at the Federal Circuit (May 2013) confirms Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2013, No. 12-1318, appealed from S.D. Fla., Judge Zloch. I treat 2013-04-19 as authoritative.

---

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings

None found. Searches of PTAB/IPR materials turned up no IPR, PGR, CBM, or reexamination on U.S. Pat. No. 5,737,054 (or on the '811/'896 patents) arising from or affecting this dispute.

Two structural reasons support that negative result:

1. Timing. Case 60488 was dismissed in September 2009 and the companion was filed the same month. IPR did not exist until the AIA (effective 2012-09-16), and the first AIRs were not instituted until 2013 — by which time the companion action was on appeal and near final judgment.
2. Doctrinal path. Zenni's winning strategy was collateral estoppel from the Altair judgments, not PTAB invalidation. Validity of the '054 patent was resolved in the district courts (obviousness on remand in Altair), not at the Board.

⚠️ I could not verify this negative by pulling a full PTAB docket (e.g., Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End / USPTO Patent Public Search); I state it as "no PTAB proceeding surfaced in search," not as a certified absence.

---

7. Bare-bones answer to "key legal developments and outcome"

For 0:09-cv-60488 itself:

• Filing: 2009-04-02, complaint on the '054 patent against Laczay.
• Pleadings: complaint only; no answer, no counterclaims.
• Motions: court's Order to Show Cause (2009-08-17); defendant's Motion to Quash Service (2009-08-28), undecided.
• Markman / discovery / trial / verdict / JMOL / fees: none — the case never got there.
• Disposition: Final Order of Dismissal without prejudice, 2009-09-04 (D.E. 10), which mooted the motion to quash. No appeal of this docket.
• Practical effect: a placeholder action abandoned in favor of the refiled 0:09-cv-61468, which produced the final merits outcome.

Ultimate outcome of the Aspex–Laczay/Zenni controversy:

• Summary judgment of non-infringement (collateral estoppel) for Laczay/Zenni in S.D. Fla. (2012).
• Affirmed, 713 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2013); the '054 patent claim 1 had separately been held invalid for obviousness on the Altair remand (aff'd 484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
• Certiorari reportedly denied ~March 2014; companion docket closed 2014-03-24. Zenni's CEO Laczay publicly framed the outcome as a win for the whole magnetic-clip-on industry.
• No PTAB proceeding was part of this story.

---

8. What I could not verify (do not treat as established)

• The exact docket text of D.E. 1 (whether the '054 patent was the only patent pleaded in 60488 — the case metadata says so; the follow-on added '811/'896). I did not read the complaint PDF.
• Whether the 60488 dismissal was stipulated/voluntary or court-imposed; the order title ("Final Order of Dismissal without Prejudice") does not say, and no stipulation appears on the visible docket.
• The identity of every attorney of record in 60488 — the Greenberg Traurig names come from a third-party counsel aggregation (Patexia), not from a PACER attorney listing; Arie Mrejen and J. Rodman Steele, Jr. are the two names tied directly to docket entries.
• Cert-denial date and docket number — sourced only to a law-firm marketing article, with no Supreme Court docket citation; treat the March 2014 date as approximate and the fact of denial as reported rather than confirmed.
• Absence of PTAB proceedings — asserted from search results, not a Board docket pull.

Primary sources for further confirmation: PACER for S.D. Fla. 0:09-cv-60488 and 0:09-cv-61468; the Fed. Cir. opinion at 713 F.3d 1377 (No. 2012-1318); Aspex Eyewear v. Altair Eyewear, 484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and 288 F. App'x 694 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Altair III); and the 2005-09-09 S.D.N.Y. Markman opinion in Aspex v. Altair (reproduced at ipmall.info).

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this case.

Let me get more specific docket and counsel details.

Let me dig into the actual filings and the related follow-on case to confirm counsel.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc.

Bottom line: Based on the available docket records, one attorney appears as counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this case — Arie Mrejen, a Fort Lauderdale patent attorney who served as longtime outside counsel to Aspex/Contour in their eyewear patent campaign. No separate lead/local/of-counsel or in-house appearances appear on the docket in this short-lived action.

---

Attorney of record

Arie Mrejen

• Role: Appears to be sole/lead counsel of record for both plaintiffs. He is the only attorney identified as a plaintiff's attorney on the docket, and he is the filer of the plaintiffs' only substantive filing (DE 6, Response to Order to Show Cause).
• Firm / office: Mrejen practiced through his own firm — docket-era signature blocks read "Mrejen Blinderman P.L., One Cypress Place, 701 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 302, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309," with the accompanying signature line "Arie Mrejen, Esq., Florida Bar No. 907210." Directory/Martindale listings contemporaneously identify him with "Arie Mrejen, P.A." at the same Fort Lauderdale address. (Sources: RPX Insight litigation document signature block, insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/2376367; FindLaw/Martindale listing at 701 W. Cypress Creek Rd., Ste. 302, Fort Lauderdale; UniCourt docket.)
• Relevant patent/litigation experience: Mrejen has acted for Aspex Eyewear in eyewear patent matters dating back years before this suit — e.g., he appeared for Aspex as petitioner in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Ross, No. 4D00-____ (Fla. 4th DCA, Feb. 21, 2001) ("Arie Mrejen of Arie Mrejen, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner"). He was the recurring Florida counsel filing Aspex/Contour's infringement complaints in the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the companion/refiled action Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Laczay, No. 0:09-cv-61468, and Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Great Eyeglasses, LLC, S.D. Fla.).

Docket evidence tying him to this case

• UniCourt's docket sheet for 0:09-cv-60488 lists "Plaintiff Attorney: Arie Mrejen" and records DE 6 as "RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Aspex Eyewear, Inc. (Mrejen, Arie)." (unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-aspex-eyewear-inc-et-al-v-laczay-353489)
• The complaint (DE 1) was filed April 2, 2009 on behalf of Aspex Eyewear and Contour Optik; the only other filings by the plaintiffs' side are the DE 5 acknowledgment of service and DE 6 response — both without a separate notice of appearance by any other attorney.

---

Cautions and unverified listings

1. Aggregator name dumps are not reliable for this case. A Patexia "summary" page for this lawsuit lists, in addition to Mrejen, several Greenberg Traurig LLP attorneys (e.g., Jacqueline Becerra, Paul Jonathan Brown, Ira R. Hatton, Mary-Olga Lovett, Dwayne L. Mason, Michael A. Nicodema, Ericka Turk-Moore, Kimberly A. Warshawsky, Tara M. Williams) alongside Aspex and Contour Optik. I could not verify that any of these entered an appearance in this case (0:09-cv-60488). Greenberg Traurig (notably Michael Nicodema and Barry Schindler) did represent Aspex/Contour in other patent suits, such as Contour Optik, Inc. v. E'lite Optik US, No. 3:00-cv-02010 (N.D. Tex.). The Patexia list appears to aggregate attorneys tied to the party across multiple cases rather than this docket, so I would treat the GT names as unconfirmed for this case. (services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Aspex-Eyewear-Inc-et-al-v-Laczay-id-24764)
2. Docket completeness. I relied on free federal-docket mirrors (UniCourt, Justia Dockets) because PACER is paywalled. The docket reflects only 10 entries and no formal "Notice of Appearance" filings, so I cannot rule out that co-counsel signed the complaint itself. The complaint PDF (DE 1) image is behind PACER/mirror paywalls; the signature block I could retrieve for an Aspex/Contour S.D. Fla. pleading of this vintage names Mrejen alone as "Counsel for Aspex Eyewear, Inc., and Contour Optik, Inc."
3. In-house / local counsel: No in-house counsel and no separately designated local counsel are shown on the record for the plaintiffs. Nothing in the available material indicates any filing was sealed in a way that would conceal a counsel identity; the only defense-side attorney appearing was Joseph Rodman Steele, Jr. (then of Akerman/Duane Morris, Boca Raton) for defendant Laczay — not a plaintiffs' counsel.

Case resolution context

The plaintiffs' claims in this action ended with a Final Order of Dismissal without prejudice on September 4, 2009 (DE 10, Judge William J. Zloch) — entered after defendant Laczay moved to quash service (DE 9). The same two plaintiffs refiled against Laczay twelve days later as No. 0:09-cv-61468 (S.D. Fla., filed Sept. 17, 2009). That follow-on docket is the better place to check whether additional or different plaintiffs' counsel (e.g., Greenberg Traurig) formally appeared; I could not fully verify its counsel roster within available sources.

---

If you need a PACER-verified roster: pull the DE 1 complaint signature block and any Rule 7.1/notice-of-appearance entries from 0:09-cv-60488 directly. On the record as I can reconstruct it, Arie Mrejen (Mrejen Blinderman P.L. / Arie Mrejen, P.A., Fort Lauderdale) is the sole identified plaintiffs' counsel of record.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for the defendant in this case.

Key lead found: defendant's counsel of record appears to be Joseph Rodman Steele, Jr. Let me verify his firm, role, and check for any co-counsel.

Let me pull the RECAP/CourtListener docket and the actual motion filing to confirm the firm and any co-counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Levente Tibor Laczay

Bottom line: The docket reflects exactly one defense attorney of record in this case — Joseph Rodman Steele, Jr. (practicing as "J. Rodman Steele, Jr."). No separate notice of appearance, no local counsel, and no second defense firm appears anywhere on the 10-entry docket.

---

Attorney identified

Docket grounding: The only defense filing was D.E. 9, "Defendant's MOTION to Quash service of summons and complaint by Levente Tibor Laczay" (filed Aug. 28, 2009), with a single exhibit attached. The CM/ECF filer account is recorded as "(Steele, Joseph)." UniCourt's attorney-of-record summary for 0:09-cv-60488 likewise lists "Defendant Attorney: Joseph Rodman Steele, Jr." and no other defense attorney.

• UniCourt case page: https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-aspex-eyewear-inc-et-al-v-laczay-353489
• Justia docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/0:2009cv60488/[333599](/patent/333599)
• Patexia case summary: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Aspex-Eyewear-Inc-et-al-v-Laczay-id-24764

---

Why Novak Druce + Quigg (and not Akerman) is the correct 2009 firm

• Steele had been Akerman Senterfitt's IP section leader (West Palm Beach). In January 2009 he and five other Akerman IP attorneys (Gregory Nelson, Jerold Schneider, Joseph Bain, John Vetter, Gregory Lefkowitz) left to open Novak Druce + Quigg's West Palm Beach office, which launched Feb. 2, 2009. This case was filed April 2, 2009 — squarely inside the Novak Druce period.
  • IP Today, "Novak Druce + Quigg LLP Adds IP Group from Akerman Senterfitt To Open West Palm Beach, Florida Office" (Jan. 23, 2009): https://www.iptoday.com/news-archived-article.asp?id=3430&type=misc
  • USPTO TTAB correspondence-change filing signed by Steele on March 6, 2009 lists his address as Novak Druce + Quigg LLP, 525 Okeechobee Blvd., Fifteenth Floor, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (changing from Akerman Senterfitt): https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91186170-OPP-5.pdf
• By the time of the later Zenni appeals (2013), he is identified with Duane Morris (Boca Raton). Duane Morris press release (2018) confirms his Best Lawyers "Lawyer of the Year" recognition in Copyright Law and IP practice: https://www.amazon.duanemorris.com/pressreleases/four_duane_morris_attorneys_recognized_lawyers_of_the_year_2019_0818.html

---

Relevant patent-litigation experience (for the "experience" prong)

• Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, Inc. — Steele was part of the Duane Morris team defending Zenni Optical, whose CEO is defendant Laczay. Zenni prevailed on summary judgment (collateral estoppel) in the S.D. Fla.; the Federal Circuit affirmed on April 19, 2013 (Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, Inc., 713 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Defense team: partners Guy Chambers (San Francisco), J. Rodman Steele (Boca Raton), Harvey Gurland (Miami); special counsel Siegfried Ruppert (San Francisco); associates Kristina Caggiano, Warren Zaffuto, Greg Lefkowitz, Karen Kline; Zenni corporate counsel Philip Green, Green & Green (San Rafael, CA).
  • IP Today (Apr. 24, 2013): https://www.iptoday.com/news-article.asp?id=8325&type=ip
• That Zenni win sits inside Aspex's long-running magnet-eyewear enforcement campaign, which also produced Aspex Eyewear v. Altair Eyewear (S.D.N.Y./D. Mass.) and Revolution Eyewear v. Aspex — useful context for why Laczay (Zenni's CEO) was personally named in 2009.

---

Important caveats on sourcing

1. Signature block not directly verified for D.E. 9. The docket text for D.E. 9 does not reproduce a full signature block showing the 2009 firm name. The Novak Druce + Quigg attribution is supported by (a) Steele's contemporaneous March 2009 TTAB filing listing that firm/address, and (b) the well-documented Jan. 2009 Akerman→Novak Druce move. I did not retrieve the actual PDF of D.E. 9 from PACER/RECAP to read the block directly.
2. No separate notice of appearance appears on the docket. Because the case was dismissed only ~7 days after D.E. 9, no answer, corporate disclosure, or pro hac vice motion was filed. Nothing on this docket is sealed.
3. Only one defense attorney. I found no evidence of a second defense lawyer, local counsel, or in-house counsel of record in 0:09-cv-60488. (The long attorney list on the Patexia page — Greenberg Traurig, Michael Nicodema, Tara Williams, etc. — is plaintiff-side/cross-case data, not defense counsel here; plaintiff's counsel of record was Arie Mrejen.)
4. Sequel case. After the without-prejudice dismissal (D.E. 10, Sept. 4, 2009), Aspex/Contour re-filed against Laczay as 0:09-cv-61468 on Sept. 17, 2009 (closed 2014). I was not able to confirm whether Steele (or a different firm) appeared for Laczay in that refiled action — treat that as unverified.

If you want, I can attempt to pull the D.E. 9 PDF image via RECAP to confirm the exact 2009 signature block and firm address.