Utah Stories

Trademark Wars: Small Businesses Fight Back Against Abusive Intellectual Property Lawsuits

What to do when small business owners are threatened by larger corporations.


bgAfter years of dreaming, saving and planning, you did it! A few weeks into operation, however, you receive a cease and desist order in the mail because you are being accused of violating the intellectual property rights of another business – either a patent violation or a trade dress (trademark) violation.

You are convinced that this lawsuit is meant to intimidate and drive you out of the market.  But what do you do next?

Some businesses are choosing to fight back, and this winter their cases have gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the first case, Octane Fitness, LLC (Octane) v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (ICON), ICON accused Octane of infringing on their elliptical design patent. Octane fought back, accusing ICON of filing a frivolous lawsuit that was only meant to harass and hamper an upstart company with an expensive, frivolous lawsuit. As part of the countersuit, Octane asked the court to order ICON to pay for all attorney fees in defending against the suit.  Because this case has been appealed many times, the amount being requested is substantial.

In the second case, Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., (Allcare), Allcare accused Highmark of infringing on their patent which covered a computer-based method of generating treatment options based on symptom data entered by a physician. The lower district court found that Allcare had willfully pursued frivolous infringement claims and ordered it to pay Highmark’s attorney’s fees and costs. The decision was appealed and is also being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both cases show that some small businesses are choosing to fight back against frivolous suits.

“There are certainly people out there that threaten a lawsuit hoping that they will be granted a royalty or the business will shut down rather than defending against a lawsuit,” said Steven Rinehart, a patent attorney practicing in Salt Lake City.  “It is too easy to use the courts to force competitors out.”

Rinehart recommends that small business owners take immediate action when threatened.

“Do not ignore it.  The best thing to do is to try to respond to a demand letter or a cease and desist order before the lawsuit is filed.  You can hire a lawyer to respond in an assertive matter that creates the impression that you will fight, and it would only cost a few hundred dollars.  This aggressive response may dissuade them from suing,” said Rinehart.

Above all, Rinehart recommends that a small business owner not respond to any communication personally.

“If a small business owner responds themselves, it shows fear and a lack of money to fight the claim.  It almost galvanizes the person that is threatening to sue.  And since it is a legal matter, you cannot respond to it yourself because you are not supposed to practice law on behalf or your business.”

If the lawsuit does proceed, Rinehart says that there are still steps a small business owner can take.

“If you respond aggressively in the discovery phase of the suit, it could dissuade them from proceeding.  They are trying to scare you.  They are trying to extort money from you.  But they may give up,” said Rinehart.

If the lawsuit continues, a small business owner can file a countersuit and ask for attorney fees and other court costs, like Octane and Highmark.

“In the case of an unjustified suit, the judge may make the plaintiff pay attorney fees and court fees as a way to sanction the plaintiff.  Judges are more inclined to grant these fees because they may realize that the patent system is broken.  It seems like it is happening more and more.” said Rinehart.

Small businesses can also file a countersuit claiming an antitrust violation.  Because the lawsuit was brought to drive competition from the market, Rinehart believes that this is a violation of antitrust law and is one of many ways to fight back against a harassing suit.

Join our newsletter.
Stay informed.


  • Utah Fits All Scholarship Applications Open Through April 30 for K–12 Students

    Utah families have more learning paths than ever and, increasingly, more ways to make those paths affordable. This spring, the Utah Fits All Scholarship opened  for new family applications on April 1, and the application window stays open for one month. The program is a public K–12 scholarship that provides $4,000 to $8,000 per student,…


  • Left in a Box as a Baby: Trauma, Alcoholism, and Addiction

    A man abandoned as a baby builds a structured life in law enforcement, but unresolved trauma and alcoholism slowly begin to unravel it. His story raises a harder question about how change actually happens.


  • The $7 Million Recruit: How NIL Changed College Athletics Forever

    In 2012, Jabari Parker, a top high school prospect and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was facing his biggest decision to that point in his life: where to play college basketball. 

    Fans of BYU athletics hoped and perhaps prayed that Parker would pick the school owned by the church he was raised in. BYU was listed as one of his final choices. But he ultimately chose to spend his college years at Duke before attempting a career in the NBA. BYU fans were disappointed, but no one was truly surprised. Duke over BYU was the best choice for a young prospect in 2012. 

    A.J. Dybantsa.

    What changed between 2012 and 2024 when A.J. Dybantsa, the number one high school prospect, chose BYU over every other school? The answer is roughly $7 million dollars. That is what Dybantsa is reportedly making to play basketball at BYU. 

    The deal was supported by Utah Jazz owner Ryan Smith, who met multiple times with the Dybantsa family in multiple attempts to bring the young player to Provo. 

    According to Smith, he had no financial role in bringing Dybantsa to BYU, but the influence of Utah’s most famous billionaire acting as a “booster” or unofficial recruiter certainly swayed the decision.

    Prior to 2021, boosters acting as recruiters was taboo to the NCAA governing body. It was called improper recruiting. But in 2021, California began the modern era of NIL, or the ability of a college athlete to benefit from their name, image, or likeness, when they passed the “Fair Pay to Play Act.” 

    This new law gave college athletes in California the ability to benefit from their NIL, something that was banned in the rest of the country to that point. The NCAA saw that this law would create an unfair advantage for California schools that could now give young athletes the chance to make money off their talent and image while still in college. 

    The NCAA knew they needed to do something quickly, so they rushed through a policy that opened up NIL to all college athletes in the country, and it has been expanding and evolving over the last four years. 

    Grant Duff, who has coached at the University of Utah, Weber State University, and is now the defensive coordinator for Idaho State University, says, “The best part of NIL is that athletes have an opportunity to make good money. The downside comes with the free-for-all that money causes.”

    Dybantsa confers with BYU Head coach, Kevin Young.

    One of the biggest current examples of what a school can do when the boosters are willing to pay for success is Texas Tech University. From 2020-2024, Texas Tech had 34 wins, which works out to 6.8 wins per year with a low of 4 wins and high of 8. Then Texas Tech’s boosters got involved, led by Cody Campbell, an oil industry businessman and Chairman of the Texas Tech board. The football program was given 28 million dollars for NIL with a simple message attached to the large pile of money: Win. And win now. And win they did. 

    By signing NIL deals with athletes in the transfer portal, Texas Tech went from a middle-of-the-pack school in their conference to one of the top 12 teams in the country. They didn’t just win games in 2025, they made many of their opponents look like they didn’t belong on the same field, including the University of Utah and BYU twice. That is what money can buy.

    Continue reading and support independent Utah journalism with a purchase of Utah Stories (Digital + Print) or 3 month free trial (Digital).


  • Cottonwood Heights Corruption Allegations: A Case That Never Reached a Courtroom

    A year ago, we here at Utah Stories recorded a podcast episode that we never published. We were revisiting corruption allegations from ten years ago. We decided not to publish the video, so it sat there on YouTube for nearly 12 months.

    Then somehow the video was published. How? We are not sure, but once it got out there, the comments came pouring in.

    Dozens of viewers, then hundreds, supported the video with their comments on our examination of allegations of police misconduct in Cottonwood Heights. The video recounts how the Police Department was reported by business owners as focusing enforcement on customers of the former Canyon Inn bar. These allegations did not result in a publicly documented, full investigation by Utah’s Justice Department nor the FBI (at least to our knowledge). So why rehash the past?

    We believe the story of The Canyon Inn (and other area business owners) vs. CHPD and Cottonwood Heights Mayor Kelvin Cullimore raises questions about what can happen when allegations surface and do not move forward through a formal legal process with state or federal oversight.

    In 2012, Cottonwood Heights business owners at the mouth of the canyons began publicly objecting to police activity whereby up to seven cruisers were pulling over 711 and Canyon Inn bar customers on their busiest evenings.

    According to those accounts, drivers leaving the bar were frequently pulled over by police and were given DUI tickets, sometimes even after passing a sobriety examination. The volume and concentration of those stops led residents and business owners to complain about the “heavy-handed treatment” of CHPD toward motorists, especially in and around the Canyon Inn and neighboring 711, and eventually the Porcupine Pub.

    Customers responded in predictable ways. Some chose not to return and avoid the area. Others went to different establishments. Over time, the owner of the Canyon Inn, Jim Stojack, stated that his revenue declined by 70% and that he believed police activity near his business was the main contributing factor.

    Utah Stories reported on these concerns by conducting interviews; gathering video documentation provided by those involved; and making public records requests. Through our GRAMA requests, we reviewed DUI citations issued by the Cottonwood Heights Police Department and examined how those cases were resolved in Holladay Justice Court. During that period, we observed a higher number based on our review of DUI cases dismissed in court due to lack of evidence compared to other jurisdictions. One DUI attorney, Tyler Ayers, went on record saying that CHPD was issuing a high volume of DUI citations that were later dismissed.

    That observation raised questions about how cases were being documented and prosecuted. It did not, on its own, establish intent or misconduct, but it became part of a broader set of concerns raised by multiple sources.

    Continue reading and support independent Utah journalism with a purchase of Utah Stories (Digital + Print) or 3 month free trial (Digital).