Camille Urban is a member of BrownWinick and Chairs the firm's Intellectual Property practice group. Camille practices in the areas of patents, trademarks and copyrights. Because most aspects of these areas of the law are federal or even international in nature, Camille's clients range from individuals to large companies located regionally as well as throughout the globe. Her practice includes engineering and negotiating international and domestic licenses and technology agreements, participating in due diligence and transfer activities relating to mergers and acquisitions and assisting clients in preparing private and public placement documents in addition to preparing and prosecuting patent and trademark applications and registering copyrights. She assists clients in creating strategies to protect and increase the value of their intellectual property both domestically and internationally, and helps clients devise and develop coherent intellectual property portfolios. Camille has provided legal services in a broad range of technical areas including:
- Processes and apparatus used to obtain value-added by-products from various production processes including biofuels production;
- Processes for decreasing net carbon outputs and for creating carbon credits;
- High efficiency wind turbine designs;
- Intelligent building monitoring and control;
- Web-enabled contract management software;
- Web-based services management systems for compliance with Medicare;
- Implements for agricultural input recordation and dispensing related to GPS positioning, crop traits, and weather conditions;
- Agricultural implements for nitrogen application, seed metering, and grain storage;
- Genetically modified and cloned animals for medical use or research and for herd development;
- Apparatus for disposing of biological waste;
- Processes for separation of components from biological fluids;
- Hybrids, inbreds and varieties of various crop-value plants;
- Art licensing and copyright protection; and
- Processes for gasifying by-products for conversion to new energy streams.
Camille also advocates for clients relative to all kinds of intellectual property, including arbitrating and litigating conflicts as necessary in various state and federal courts and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Camille received her B.A. in Chemistry from Iowa State University in 1985 where she was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa, her M.A.T. in Teaching from the University of Iowa in 1987 and completed law school in two years in the accelerated program at the University of Iowa, obtaining her J.D., with high distinction, in 1998. Camille was admitted to the Iowa bar in 1998. She is admitted to practice in the Southern District of Iowa and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Camille is also admitted to practice in the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a registered patent attorney.
Filtrexx International, LLC v. Soil-Tek, Inc., et al. - Northern District of Ohio — Represented defendants in a multimillion dollar patent and trademark infringement lawsuit in federal district court for the Northern District of Ohio, where Court granted our motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
In re: Method for Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems Patent Litigation — Multi-district litigation for patent infringement of a process for separating corn oil from ethanol byproducts, represented five of more than 25 defendants. A landmark case in the ethanol industry, affecting far more than a majority of ethanol plants.
Compassion International, Inc. v. Global Compassion Network, LLC — Trademark infringement suit pending in Central Illinois. Represent defendant; addresses questions related to famous mark and dilution thereof, as well as whether US trademark law can be used to address international activities.
Natural Alternatives v. Max Smith and JM Farms — Patent infringement lawsuit concerning patent rights related to composition for deicing, reducing ice formation on surfaces. Represent defendants. Raises novel questions about the effect of simultaneous patent reexamination and patent claim scope in litigation.