Heading to London for INTA

At the end of April, I'll be boarding a flight to London for the International Trademark Association's Annual Meeting — INTA 2026. It will be a week of panels, roundtables, receptions, and the particular brand of organized chaos that only 10,000 IP professionals descending on a single city can produce. I have been looking forward to it.

For those unfamiliar, INTA's Annual Meeting is the largest gathering of trademark practitioners in the world. Attorneys, brand owners, paralegals, technology vendors, academics, and regulators from over 160 countries spend several days in intense professional proximity. The sessions are good. The hallway conversations are often better.

I want to use this post to do something straightforward: tell you what I am focused on this year, who I am hoping to meet, and what I can offer — whether you are a brand owner trying to stop someone from stealing your market, or a seller who just received a federal lawsuit and needs to understand your options fast.

Both Sides of the Docket

At Phillips & Bathke, I represent both brand owners pursuing counterfeiters and defendants who have been accused of infringement — sometimes in the very same type of case. That dual perspective is not a conflict problem; it is a competency advantage. When I am pursuing infringers on behalf of a client, I know exactly what defenses they will raise and where the enforcement strategy has to be airtight. When I am defending a seller who has been hit with an ex parte TRO and an asset freeze, I know where the plaintiff's case has vulnerabilities and what the path to resolution actually looks like.

Federal trademark and patent enforcement moves fast. Asset restraints can land before a defendant even knows a case has been filed. If you are on the receiving end of that, the first call you make matters considerably. And if you are the brand owner who needs to move that quickly, you need counsel who has been on both sides of it.

That is where I live.

What I Handle

My practice centers on intellectual property litigation across the full spectrum: trademark enforcement and defense, patent infringement, copyright, trade dress, and the increasingly messy intersection of all of the above with e-commerce.

On the enforcement side, my firm handles what are called Schedule A cases — federal actions against counterfeit sellers on Amazon, Temu, Shein, and similar platforms. These cases proceed on an expedited basis, often with temporary restraining orders and asset freezes obtained before the defendants are even notified. They require a specific kind of procedural fluency and a willingness to move quickly. We have built that capacity.

On the defense side, I represent sellers and businesses who have been accused of infringement — including defendants in Schedule A actions who need to understand whether the plaintiff's claims hold up, whether the asset freeze can be challenged, and what a reasonable resolution looks like. Not every counterfeit case involves an actual counterfeiter. Some involve genuine disputes about product sourcing, authorized resale, or overbroad enforcement. I have seen all of it.

Beyond Schedule A, the work includes standard trademark infringement litigation, patent enforcement and defense, internet law, and some regulatory practice. The common thread is that I like cases with real stakes that require actual strategy.

Why INTA

Trademark practitioners go to INTA because that is where the community is. For an enforcement-focused attorney, there is a more specific reason: it is where you find the people who are actually experiencing the brand protection problem — and the brand enforcement problem — in real time.

Brand owners at INTA are not abstract entities. They are the in-house counsel managing marketplace abuse at scale, the brand protection teams who have exhausted takedown notices and need someone to file a motion. They come to INTA partly for education and partly because they are looking for litigation counsel they can trust when the situation requires it.

And on the other side of the room, there are businesses and their counsel trying to figure out how to respond when a brand owner's enforcement strategy reaches them. Sellers who need to understand their exposure. Companies trying to determine whether a demand letter reflects a legitimate claim or an overcalibrated enforcement campaign.

INTA is full of both. I am there for both.

What I Am Looking For

To be direct about it: I am looking to connect with a few specific kinds of people this year.

Brand owners and in-house teams dealing with marketplace counterfeiting, grey market distribution, or brand abuse who need outside litigation support. If your brand is being knocked off at scale and you want to understand what the federal enforcement path looks like, I am happy to have that conversation.

Sellers, distributors, and their counsel who are on the receiving end of trademark or patent enforcement actions and need to understand their options. Asset freezes, TROs, accelerated discovery — these are serious procedural tools, and the response to them matters.

Outside counsel from other jurisdictions — international firms with US clients and US firms outside Illinois that handle trademark prosecution but not enforcement litigation. My firm handles cases in federal courts across the country and we are always building referral relationships with counsel whose practices complement rather than overlap with ours.

Attorneys doing Schedule A work or adjacent e-commerce enforcement who want to compare notes. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing the ex parte procedures. The Hague Convention question on electronic service remains unsettled. There are real strategic issues worth discussing with people who are in the trenches on both sides.

And, finally, practicioners in China, India, and Europe, especially, but anywhere for enforcement of my client’s rights abroad.

A Note on London

I will be in London from April 30 through May 10, staying near the venue. If you are attending INTA and want to meet up — or if you are in London during that period for any reason — reach out. My email is jlap@pb-iplaw.com. I respond to direct, specific messages, so tell me who you are and what you are working on.

London in late spring is not a bad place to have a conversation. Over coffee, over a proper pub lunch, over something stronger at the end of a long conference day. I am told the weather is occasionally cooperative, though I am not counting on it.

Jonathan Phillips is a founding partner at Phillips & Bathke, P.C. in Peoria, Illinois, where his practice focuses on IP litigation, trademark and patent enforcement and defense, and internet law. He can be reached at jlap@pb-iplaw.com or (309) 643-6518.