Paul Fraulo

Paul Fraulo

ATTORNEYS & STAFF

paul fraulo

Attorney

New York

Phone: 914-275-1638

Biography

An aggressive litigator and experienced trial lawyer known for his unique combination of legal and scientific knowledge, Paul’s clients value his creative problem solving, comprehensive analysis, and consistent track record of success.

Focused on patent, trademark, and commercial disputes, Paul helps clients protect their IP assets, including their trade secrets, brand recognition, and patentable technologies. Working closely with clients of all sizes and from all over the globe, Paul tailors his advice and develops strategies to fit his clients’ immediate business goals while positioning them for long-term success.

Recently, Paul litigated a case involving a trademark dispute in the toy industry. He helped the client successfully navigate the depositions, minimizing the harmful evidence and damaging testimony that the plaintiff was able to obtain, in order to put the client in the best possible position to settle the case after discovery closed. Similarly, Paul helped a client to develop a strong defense in another recent trademark dispute, working with an expert that he found to prepare several liability and damages expert reports. One expert report included a confusion survey and analysis thereof to show that the relevant consumers would not be confused by defendant’s products and packaging. Another report included a conjoint analysis—a complex economic analysis not typically used in trademark cases—to support a novel theory that any alleged infringement by the defendant resulted in no actual damages.

Though clients are often best served by a timely and cost-effective settlement or resolution, Paul prepares every case and litigates every dispute as if it will go to trial. Drawing upon his extensive business and IP litigation experience—from contract, property, and product liability disputes to all manner of patent and trademark actions—he understands how relentlessly driving a case toward trial often creates the opportunity to obtain the best results for his clients.

In a recent case, Paul successfully had all claims against his client dismissed on the basis of the claims being duplicative of those pending in another litigation. This success allowed the client to completely avoid conducting discovery in the case, including the corresponding costs and frustrations of producing documents and sitting for depositions.

Prior to law school, Paul taught science in Qatar for two years. He received his J.D. cum laude from Brooklyn Law School and was awarded a B.A. in Astrophysics and Economics from Williams College.

Education

  • Brooklyn Law School, cum laude, J.D.
  • Williams College, B.A. Astrophysics and Economics, 2010

Admissions

  • District of New Jersey
  • Southern District of New York
  • Eastern District of New York
  • District of Connecticut

BAR Admissions

  • New York
  • New Jersey
  • Connecticut
  • Registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 72,121

Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Intellectual Property

Practice Areas

  • Trade Secrets Institute Fellow (2014 – 2015)
  • Journal of Law and Policy, Articles Editor
  • Moot Court Honor Society – Appellate Division
  • CALI Excellence for the Future Award in Trade Secrets Workshop
  • Judge Sobel Prize for the highest grade in the course in Criminal Law
  • Best Draft Amendment at the 2013 Transactional LawMeet Competition
  • Dean’s Merit Scholarship

Case List

  • Musco v. SMGR – representing multiple defendants in a multi-party real estate dispute involving allegations of fraud and breach of contract, through trial, which remains ongoing.
  • Paradigm Staffing v. Dial Doc Now – representing the plaintiff in a breach of contract suit, including successfully defending a motion to dismiss, and successfully dismissing a third-party claim on the basis of duplicative claims from another litigation.
  • All in Won v. Dial Doc Now – representing the plaintiff in a breach of contract case in the healthcare industry, involving a dispute between former business partners in a medical practice.
  • NHDNC v. Velcro – represented petitioner in a TTAB proceeding seeking cancellation of the VELCRO trademark on the basis of its widespread generic use throughout society.
  • Board of Trustees of U. of Ark. v. Homesick BVG, LLC – represented the registrant in TTAB proceeding defending baseless allegations of likelihood of confusion.
  • Bowen v. Statewide Homes – successfully defended the defendant employer against baseless allegations of unpaid compensation in a wage and hour dispute in the modular home industry.
  • Nulids v. Blephex – represented the defendant in a patent dispute and related IPR involving a device for the treatment of dry eye / blepharitis.
  • FBA Operating Co. v. ETN Capital, LLC – represented the plaintiff in a patent dispute involving an RV leveling system.
  • Levene v. Herzka – successfully defended the defendant against a breach of contract suit involving a real estate development transaction, obtaining a dismissal with prejudice on a motion to dismiss.
  • Broad Zone Management LLC v. Reserve Funding Group LLC – successfully obtained dismissal of several claims brought against the defendant relating to breach of contract in the merchant cash advance industry; continuing to defend the suit in New York state Court.
  • Robby Deniro – representing the defendant in suit seeking damages and relief related to 1st amendment retaliation claims against Orchard Park School District.
  • Actava v. Kartina – representing broadcast media client in breach of contract, tortious interference, malicious prosecution, and deceptive trade practices dispute over copyrighted content.
  • Samra et al v. Fortitude Health, LLC – represented plaintiff in this trademark and contract dispute in the skin cream industry, taking and defending depositions, and helping the client obtain a favorable resolution.
  • Wiesel Patent Reexamination – Representing individual client in patent litigation against Apple in federal court. Apple filed inter partes review attempting to invalidate the patent-in-suit but was denied institution by PTAB.
  • BTL v. TR Prime Equity – represented the defendant in this contract dispute involving personal protective equipment, obtaining a favorable resolution for the firm’s client.
  • New Chapter v. Advanced Nutrition – represented the defendant in this high-stakes trademark dispute, including taking the 30(b)(6) deposition of the corporate plaintiff, a Proctor & Gamble portfolio company.
  • Morbieu v. Keayes – represented defendants in this directors and officers suit in the real estate industry, successfully dismissing nearly all of plaintiff’s claims and forcing the insurer to cover defense costs after the insurer had previously refused coverage multiple times.
  • Rightway Distribution v. Zep – represented the plaintiff in this trademark dispute in the commercial cleaning products industry, successfully resolving this matter on favorable terms for the firm’s client.
  • Yan Luis v. Homesick – represented the defendant corporation from claims of ADA violations, obtaining a walk-away settlement.
  • RJ Brands v. Bloomberg – represented the plaintiff in this trademark dispute against a billion-dollar company in the District of New Jersey.
  • Peyman Younesi MD PLLC v. Okereke et al – represented the plaintiff in this employment dispute against a former employee in the healthcare industry and obtained a favorable business resolution for the firm’s client.
  • GARP v. GIFP – represented the defendant in this trademark dispute in the financial credentialing industry, conducting and defending multiple depositions.
  • BTC v. Performance Solutions – represented a small business in the consumer goods industry, defending the firm’s client against patent infringement claims.
  • BTL v DSource – represented the plaintiff in this contract action involving personal protective equipment and obtained a favorable resolution for the client.
  • BTL v. Floral Decorativa – represented the plaintiff in this contract action involving personal protective equipment and obtained a favorable resolution for the client.
  • LCO v. Glamping Gadgets – represented a small Amazon toy seller in this IP dispute, defending the firm’s client against patent infringement claims.
  • LCO v. Buckle Toy – represented a small Amazon toy seller in this IP dispute, defending the firm’s client against patent infringement claims.