{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"13","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"F","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":445137,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7292,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Fakler advises and helps favorably resolve cases for companies in the streaming, broadcasting, media, software, and other industries to advance their business objectives. Paul offers clients representation guided by a rich understanding of the intersection between music (and other content), technology, and business. He frequently speaks and publishes on legal developments in these fields and has over twenty-five years of experience litigating seminal cases involving the application of copyright and related law to digital media.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough he helps clients with issues across many types of content, Paul has particularly deep experience resolving copyright issues relating to music, where clients operating at the cutting edge of technology require equally innovative legal representation. Paul offers creative solutions based on his deep understanding of copyright law and technology through counseling, government relations, and \u0026ndash; when necessary \u0026ndash; litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs an experienced copyright lawyer, former software developer and amateur musician, he is also proficient in software copyright litigation and has been advising clients regarding copyright issues related to machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies for over a decade. He is one of the few lawyers in the country with extensive first-chair experience before the Copyright Royalty Board and other royalty rate setting venues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience spans many issues, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright issues implicated by the training and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDigital media and other technologies\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMusic licensing and copyright royalty rate litigation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoyalty audits and payment disputes\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright infringement disputes\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFair use and other defenses\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe DMCA and its safe harbor for online service providers\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright policy matters\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovernment affairs\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation \u0026amp; Licensing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has litigated numerous high-profile copyright cases involving digital media, copyright, and the Internet. He routinely represents digital music services, as well as other media, software, and consumer products companies, in negotiations and disputes with record labels, music publishers, and other rights holders. His clients in these groundbreaking cases have included MP3.com, Yahoo!, Veoh, MediaNet, Sirius XM Radio, Pandora Media, Bill Graham Archives, ExpressVPN, Private Internet Access, and Music Choice. Paul obtained the only two royalty rate reductions ever granted by the Copyright Royalty Board (or its predecessors) and often makes new law on issues such as the DMCA safe harbor and fair use through representing clients in bet-the-company copyright infringement litigation across many industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCounseling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients seek Paul\u0026rsquo;s counsel in copyright, trademark, right of publicity, entertainment, computer, and Internet law issues in diverse industries, including the music, motion picture, publishing, software development, data security, and digital media industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGovernment Relations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also advises on strategies for shaping copyright policy and represents clients\u0026rsquo; interest before government entities that impact the copyright ecosystem, such as Congress, the Copyright Office, and the Department of Justice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients served by Paul have included Sirius XM, Pandora, Music Choice, the Orchestra Music Licensing Association, Google, the Television Music Licensing Committee, MediaNet, MP3.com, LaunchCast, Veoh Networks, and Express VPN.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-fakler","email":"pfakler@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003ePandora Media in group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora\u0026rsquo;s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license rights to the underlying jokes in addition to their existing licenses to stream the sound recordings. Paul served as head of a large, multidisciplinary team not only for Pandora\u0026rsquo;s defense of these actions, but also in counterclaims against the plaintiffs and Word Collections for violation of various antitrust laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMusic Choice, the world\u0026rsquo;s first digital music service, in litigation brought by SoundExchange, alleging underpayment of statutory license royalties for Music Choice\u0026rsquo;s commercial background music service.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral technology companies, from startups to a Fortune 500 semiconductor and software company, advising on the copyright issues raised by the training, commercialization, and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe Television Music Licensing Committee in connection with negotiations and potential rate court litigation against various Performing Rights Organizations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBill Graham Archives, operator of the Wolfgang\u0026rsquo;s and Concert Vault music services, in class action copyright infringement litigation arising from allegations that the company failed to secure mechanical and synchronization licenses for on-demand streaming of its collection of live concert audio and video recordings on its websites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDigital music service MediaNet in litigations brought by various songwriters and music publishers relating to mechanical license requirements, leading to favorable settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMP3.com digital music service in various copyright infringement lawsuits brought by record labels and music publishers relating to music streaming service, including litigation of whether musical sound recordings are works made for hire under the Copyright Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eYahoo! in a copyright case brought by the recording industry, determining the eligibility of Yahoo!\u0026rsquo;s LaunchCast webcasting service for a statutory copyright license.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSymphonic rock band Trans-Siberian Orchestra in copyright infringement case relating to album art and band merchandise, leading to favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eScottish software developer in copyright infringement case brought by its competitor, one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest ATM hardware and software companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProminent law firm in copyright infringement case relating to computer software used to process specialized financial transactions, successfully reversing preliminary injunction on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePublications International, Ltd. in a case brought by the makers of Beanie Babies plush toys arising out of the publication of a Beanie Babies collector\u0026rsquo;s guide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral Virtual Private Network (VPN) service providers, including ExpressVPN and Private Internet Access, in bet-the-industry copyright litigation brought by a group of independent movie production companies in courts throughout the country, seeking to hold VPN providers liable for the alleged movie piracy of individual consumers using VPN services. Recently negotiated favorable settlement for two VPNs, while proceeding to litigation for another.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMajor cosmetics company in connection with copyright infringement claims brought by major record and music publishing companies, based upon the posting or re-posting of videos that contain background music on social media accounts, including those by influencers and ordinary consumers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMusic Choice in connection with the current Preexisting Subscription Service license rate proceeding (SDARS IV) before the Copyright Royalty Board, as well as every prior rate proceeding for Music Choice since the creation of the CRB. Obtained the second rate decrease in the history of the CRB (and its predecessors) in same year when other licensees\u0026rsquo; rates were increased by over 40%. Recently won appeal of ancillary issue before the D.C. Circuit, obtaining rare reversal of both the Register of Copyrights and the Board.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade association Orchestra Music Licensing Association (\u0026ldquo;OMLA\u0026rdquo;), representing the interests of symphony orchestras in connection with various music rights and licensing issues, including Performing Rights Organization license negotiations, the Copyright Office\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;technical measures\u0026rdquo; study, and disputes regarding the creation and use of custom orchestrations of popular music by \u0026ldquo;pops\u0026rdquo; orchestras.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius XM Radio, Music Choice, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, and other music licensees in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s 2014-2015 and 2019-2021 reviews of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. In both review proceedings, Paul\u0026rsquo;s work resulted in DOJ closing the review without making any of the harmful changes requested by ASCAP, BMI, and music publishers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious digital music services and other music licensees in connection with the negotiation, drafting, and enactment of the Music Modernization Act, including assisting clients in preparing for testimony at congressional hearings, lobbying, and obtaining key changes in the legislation to advance clients\u0026rsquo; interests.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius XM Satellite Radio in the Webcasting IV royalty rate proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board, resulting in the first royalty rate decrease ever granted by the Board or its predecessors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational trade association for broadcasters and Music Choice in connection with Copyright Office music licensing policy hearings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe unsecured creditors\u0026rsquo; committee in the Cengage Learning bankruptcy, the largest Chapter 11 filing of 2013. Developed a novel copyright strategy that placed the liens on all the debtor\u0026rsquo;s copyrights at risk, leading to a significantly increased recovery for the unsecured creditors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSylvain Sylvain, founding member of seminal proto-punk band New York Dolls, successfully obtaining cancellation of trademark registration improperly obtained by David Johansen\u0026rsquo;s personal corporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMembers of The Allman Brothers Band in litigation against UMG Recordings, Inc. for failure to pay royalties at the correct rate for digital downloads and other digital exploitation of several classic albums by The Allman Brothers Band.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFamous artist Greg Hildebrandt, in DMCA fraudulent takedown notice litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst Niagara Insurance Brokers in $530 million trademark infringement action against First Niagara Financial Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBill Graham Archives LLC with respect to various copyright, trademark, right of publicity, and other intellectual property disputes relating to the operation of its Wolfgang\u0026rsquo;s Vault website and exploitation of its rights to a large collection of sound recordings, poster art, and vintage rock and roll memorabilia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDomain name registrar Register.com in obtaining a preliminary injunction, affirmed on appeal, stopping the defendant from harvesting customer data from Register.com\u0026rsquo;s WHOIS database.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn individual client in action to obtain subpoenas to trace identity of defendants who had posted defamatory statements on Internet forums.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA religious organization in a trademark action relating to the unauthorized use of the client\u0026rsquo;s trademark in a third-level domain name.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCaesar\u0026rsquo;s World, Inc. in one of the first in rem cases brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated preliminary injunction action brought by comedian Jackie Mason against a religious organization arising from the use of Mr. Mason\u0026rsquo;s name and likeness in a parody on a religious tract.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fakler","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"1998 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1998-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Top Music Lawyer”","detail":"Billboard Magazine"},{"title":"Ranked as a leading Media and Entertainment litigator, and Copyright and Trademark lawyer","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners USA"},{"title":"Ranked","detail":"The Legal 500"},{"title":"Named a WIPR leader","detail":"World IP Review"},{"title":"Ranked a “Premier IP Star (Litigation)” in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Fakler advises and helps favorably resolve cases for companies in the streaming, broadcasting, media, software, and other industries to advance their business objectives. Paul offers clients representation guided by a rich understanding of the intersection between music (and other content), technology, and business. He frequently speaks and publishes on legal developments in these fields and has over twenty-five years of experience litigating seminal cases involving the application of copyright and related law to digital media.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough he helps clients with issues across many types of content, Paul has particularly deep experience resolving copyright issues relating to music, where clients operating at the cutting edge of technology require equally innovative legal representation. Paul offers creative solutions based on his deep understanding of copyright law and technology through counseling, government relations, and \u0026ndash; when necessary \u0026ndash; litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs an experienced copyright lawyer, former software developer and amateur musician, he is also proficient in software copyright litigation and has been advising clients regarding copyright issues related to machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies for over a decade. He is one of the few lawyers in the country with extensive first-chair experience before the Copyright Royalty Board and other royalty rate setting venues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience spans many issues, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright issues implicated by the training and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDigital media and other technologies\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMusic licensing and copyright royalty rate litigation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoyalty audits and payment disputes\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright infringement disputes\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFair use and other defenses\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe DMCA and its safe harbor for online service providers\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright policy matters\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovernment affairs\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation \u0026amp; Licensing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has litigated numerous high-profile copyright cases involving digital media, copyright, and the Internet. He routinely represents digital music services, as well as other media, software, and consumer products companies, in negotiations and disputes with record labels, music publishers, and other rights holders. His clients in these groundbreaking cases have included MP3.com, Yahoo!, Veoh, MediaNet, Sirius XM Radio, Pandora Media, Bill Graham Archives, ExpressVPN, Private Internet Access, and Music Choice. Paul obtained the only two royalty rate reductions ever granted by the Copyright Royalty Board (or its predecessors) and often makes new law on issues such as the DMCA safe harbor and fair use through representing clients in bet-the-company copyright infringement litigation across many industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCounseling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients seek Paul\u0026rsquo;s counsel in copyright, trademark, right of publicity, entertainment, computer, and Internet law issues in diverse industries, including the music, motion picture, publishing, software development, data security, and digital media industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGovernment Relations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also advises on strategies for shaping copyright policy and represents clients\u0026rsquo; interest before government entities that impact the copyright ecosystem, such as Congress, the Copyright Office, and the Department of Justice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients served by Paul have included Sirius XM, Pandora, Music Choice, the Orchestra Music Licensing Association, Google, the Television Music Licensing Committee, MediaNet, MP3.com, LaunchCast, Veoh Networks, and Express VPN.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003ePandora Media in group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora\u0026rsquo;s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license rights to the underlying jokes in addition to their existing licenses to stream the sound recordings. Paul served as head of a large, multidisciplinary team not only for Pandora\u0026rsquo;s defense of these actions, but also in counterclaims against the plaintiffs and Word Collections for violation of various antitrust laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMusic Choice, the world\u0026rsquo;s first digital music service, in litigation brought by SoundExchange, alleging underpayment of statutory license royalties for Music Choice\u0026rsquo;s commercial background music service.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral technology companies, from startups to a Fortune 500 semiconductor and software company, advising on the copyright issues raised by the training, commercialization, and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe Television Music Licensing Committee in connection with negotiations and potential rate court litigation against various Performing Rights Organizations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBill Graham Archives, operator of the Wolfgang\u0026rsquo;s and Concert Vault music services, in class action copyright infringement litigation arising from allegations that the company failed to secure mechanical and synchronization licenses for on-demand streaming of its collection of live concert audio and video recordings on its websites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDigital music service MediaNet in litigations brought by various songwriters and music publishers relating to mechanical license requirements, leading to favorable settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMP3.com digital music service in various copyright infringement lawsuits brought by record labels and music publishers relating to music streaming service, including litigation of whether musical sound recordings are works made for hire under the Copyright Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eYahoo! in a copyright case brought by the recording industry, determining the eligibility of Yahoo!\u0026rsquo;s LaunchCast webcasting service for a statutory copyright license.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSymphonic rock band Trans-Siberian Orchestra in copyright infringement case relating to album art and band merchandise, leading to favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eScottish software developer in copyright infringement case brought by its competitor, one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest ATM hardware and software companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProminent law firm in copyright infringement case relating to computer software used to process specialized financial transactions, successfully reversing preliminary injunction on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePublications International, Ltd. in a case brought by the makers of Beanie Babies plush toys arising out of the publication of a Beanie Babies collector\u0026rsquo;s guide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral Virtual Private Network (VPN) service providers, including ExpressVPN and Private Internet Access, in bet-the-industry copyright litigation brought by a group of independent movie production companies in courts throughout the country, seeking to hold VPN providers liable for the alleged movie piracy of individual consumers using VPN services. Recently negotiated favorable settlement for two VPNs, while proceeding to litigation for another.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMajor cosmetics company in connection with copyright infringement claims brought by major record and music publishing companies, based upon the posting or re-posting of videos that contain background music on social media accounts, including those by influencers and ordinary consumers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMusic Choice in connection with the current Preexisting Subscription Service license rate proceeding (SDARS IV) before the Copyright Royalty Board, as well as every prior rate proceeding for Music Choice since the creation of the CRB. Obtained the second rate decrease in the history of the CRB (and its predecessors) in same year when other licensees\u0026rsquo; rates were increased by over 40%. Recently won appeal of ancillary issue before the D.C. Circuit, obtaining rare reversal of both the Register of Copyrights and the Board.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade association Orchestra Music Licensing Association (\u0026ldquo;OMLA\u0026rdquo;), representing the interests of symphony orchestras in connection with various music rights and licensing issues, including Performing Rights Organization license negotiations, the Copyright Office\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;technical measures\u0026rdquo; study, and disputes regarding the creation and use of custom orchestrations of popular music by \u0026ldquo;pops\u0026rdquo; orchestras.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius XM Radio, Music Choice, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, and other music licensees in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s 2014-2015 and 2019-2021 reviews of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. In both review proceedings, Paul\u0026rsquo;s work resulted in DOJ closing the review without making any of the harmful changes requested by ASCAP, BMI, and music publishers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious digital music services and other music licensees in connection with the negotiation, drafting, and enactment of the Music Modernization Act, including assisting clients in preparing for testimony at congressional hearings, lobbying, and obtaining key changes in the legislation to advance clients\u0026rsquo; interests.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius XM Satellite Radio in the Webcasting IV royalty rate proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board, resulting in the first royalty rate decrease ever granted by the Board or its predecessors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational trade association for broadcasters and Music Choice in connection with Copyright Office music licensing policy hearings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe unsecured creditors\u0026rsquo; committee in the Cengage Learning bankruptcy, the largest Chapter 11 filing of 2013. Developed a novel copyright strategy that placed the liens on all the debtor\u0026rsquo;s copyrights at risk, leading to a significantly increased recovery for the unsecured creditors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSylvain Sylvain, founding member of seminal proto-punk band New York Dolls, successfully obtaining cancellation of trademark registration improperly obtained by David Johansen\u0026rsquo;s personal corporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMembers of The Allman Brothers Band in litigation against UMG Recordings, Inc. for failure to pay royalties at the correct rate for digital downloads and other digital exploitation of several classic albums by The Allman Brothers Band.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFamous artist Greg Hildebrandt, in DMCA fraudulent takedown notice litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst Niagara Insurance Brokers in $530 million trademark infringement action against First Niagara Financial Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBill Graham Archives LLC with respect to various copyright, trademark, right of publicity, and other intellectual property disputes relating to the operation of its Wolfgang\u0026rsquo;s Vault website and exploitation of its rights to a large collection of sound recordings, poster art, and vintage rock and roll memorabilia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDomain name registrar Register.com in obtaining a preliminary injunction, affirmed on appeal, stopping the defendant from harvesting customer data from Register.com\u0026rsquo;s WHOIS database.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn individual client in action to obtain subpoenas to trace identity of defendants who had posted defamatory statements on Internet forums.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA religious organization in a trademark action relating to the unauthorized use of the client\u0026rsquo;s trademark in a third-level domain name.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCaesar\u0026rsquo;s World, Inc. in one of the first in rem cases brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated preliminary injunction action brought by comedian Jackie Mason against a religious organization arising from the use of Mr. Mason\u0026rsquo;s name and likeness in a parody on a religious tract.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Top Music Lawyer”","detail":"Billboard Magazine"},{"title":"Ranked as a leading Media and Entertainment litigator, and Copyright and Trademark lawyer","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners USA"},{"title":"Ranked","detail":"The Legal 500"},{"title":"Named a WIPR leader","detail":"World IP Review"},{"title":"Ranked a “Premier IP Star (Litigation)” in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13303}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-20T22:04:02.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-20T22:04:02.000Z","searchable_text":"Fakler{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Music Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Billboard Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a leading Media and Entertainment litigator, and Copyright and Trademark lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers \u0026amp; Partners USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a WIPR leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"World IP Review\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked a “Premier IP Star (Litigation)” in New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property\"}{{ FIELD }}Pandora Media in group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora’s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license rights to the underlying jokes in addition to their existing licenses to stream the sound recordings. Paul served as head of a large, multidisciplinary team not only for Pandora’s defense of these actions, but also in counterclaims against the plaintiffs and Word Collections for violation of various antitrust laws.{{ FIELD }}Music Choice, the world’s first digital music service, in litigation brought by SoundExchange, alleging underpayment of statutory license royalties for Music Choice’s commercial background music service.{{ FIELD }}Several technology companies, from startups to a Fortune 500 semiconductor and software company, advising on the copyright issues raised by the training, commercialization, and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning technologies.{{ FIELD }}The Television Music Licensing Committee in connection with negotiations and potential rate court litigation against various Performing Rights Organizations.{{ FIELD }}Bill Graham Archives, operator of the Wolfgang’s and Concert Vault music services, in class action copyright infringement litigation arising from allegations that the company failed to secure mechanical and synchronization licenses for on-demand streaming of its collection of live concert audio and video recordings on its websites.{{ FIELD }}Digital music service MediaNet in litigations brought by various songwriters and music publishers relating to mechanical license requirements, leading to favorable settlements.{{ FIELD }}MP3.com digital music service in various copyright infringement lawsuits brought by record labels and music publishers relating to music streaming service, including litigation of whether musical sound recordings are works made for hire under the Copyright Act.{{ FIELD }}Yahoo! in a copyright case brought by the recording industry, determining the eligibility of Yahoo!’s LaunchCast webcasting service for a statutory copyright license.{{ FIELD }}Symphonic rock band Trans-Siberian Orchestra in copyright infringement case relating to album art and band merchandise, leading to favorable settlement.{{ FIELD }}Scottish software developer in copyright infringement case brought by its competitor, one of the world’s largest ATM hardware and software companies.{{ FIELD }}Prominent law firm in copyright infringement case relating to computer software used to process specialized financial transactions, successfully reversing preliminary injunction on appeal to the Second Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Publications International, Ltd. in a case brought by the makers of Beanie Babies plush toys arising out of the publication of a Beanie Babies collector’s guide.{{ FIELD }}Several Virtual Private Network (VPN) service providers, including ExpressVPN and Private Internet Access, in bet-the-industry copyright litigation brought by a group of independent movie production companies in courts throughout the country, seeking to hold VPN providers liable for the alleged movie piracy of individual consumers using VPN services. Recently negotiated favorable settlement for two VPNs, while proceeding to litigation for another.{{ FIELD }}Major cosmetics company in connection with copyright infringement claims brought by major record and music publishing companies, based upon the posting or re-posting of videos that contain background music on social media accounts, including those by influencers and ordinary consumers.{{ FIELD }}Music Choice in connection with the current Preexisting Subscription Service license rate proceeding (SDARS IV) before the Copyright Royalty Board, as well as every prior rate proceeding for Music Choice since the creation of the CRB. Obtained the second rate decrease in the history of the CRB (and its predecessors) in same year when other licensees’ rates were increased by over 40%. Recently won appeal of ancillary issue before the D.C. Circuit, obtaining rare reversal of both the Register of Copyrights and the Board.{{ FIELD }}Trade association Orchestra Music Licensing Association (“OMLA”), representing the interests of symphony orchestras in connection with various music rights and licensing issues, including Performing Rights Organization license negotiations, the Copyright Office’s “technical measures” study, and disputes regarding the creation and use of custom orchestrations of popular music by “pops” orchestras.{{ FIELD }}Sirius XM Radio, Music Choice, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, and other music licensees in connection with the Department of Justice’s 2014-2015 and 2019-2021 reviews of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. In both review proceedings, Paul’s work resulted in DOJ closing the review without making any of the harmful changes requested by ASCAP, BMI, and music publishers.{{ FIELD }}Various digital music services and other music licensees in connection with the negotiation, drafting, and enactment of the Music Modernization Act, including assisting clients in preparing for testimony at congressional hearings, lobbying, and obtaining key changes in the legislation to advance clients’ interests.{{ FIELD }}Sirius XM Satellite Radio in the Webcasting IV royalty rate proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board, resulting in the first royalty rate decrease ever granted by the Board or its predecessors.{{ FIELD }}National trade association for broadcasters and Music Choice in connection with Copyright Office music licensing policy hearings.{{ FIELD }}The unsecured creditors’ committee in the Cengage Learning bankruptcy, the largest Chapter 11 filing of 2013. Developed a novel copyright strategy that placed the liens on all the debtor’s copyrights at risk, leading to a significantly increased recovery for the unsecured creditors.{{ FIELD }}Sylvain Sylvain, founding member of seminal proto-punk band New York Dolls, successfully obtaining cancellation of trademark registration improperly obtained by David Johansen’s personal corporation.{{ FIELD }}Members of The Allman Brothers Band in litigation against UMG Recordings, Inc. for failure to pay royalties at the correct rate for digital downloads and other digital exploitation of several classic albums by The Allman Brothers Band.{{ FIELD }}Famous artist Greg Hildebrandt, in DMCA fraudulent takedown notice litigation.{{ FIELD }}First Niagara Insurance Brokers in $530 million trademark infringement action against First Niagara Financial Group.{{ FIELD }}Bill Graham Archives LLC with respect to various copyright, trademark, right of publicity, and other intellectual property disputes relating to the operation of its Wolfgang’s Vault website and exploitation of its rights to a large collection of sound recordings, poster art, and vintage rock and roll memorabilia.{{ FIELD }}Domain name registrar Register.com in obtaining a preliminary injunction, affirmed on appeal, stopping the defendant from harvesting customer data from Register.com’s WHOIS database.{{ FIELD }}An individual client in action to obtain subpoenas to trace identity of defendants who had posted defamatory statements on Internet forums.{{ FIELD }}A religious organization in a trademark action relating to the unauthorized use of the client’s trademark in a third-level domain name.{{ FIELD }}Caesar’s World, Inc. in one of the first in rem cases brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.{{ FIELD }}Defeated preliminary injunction action brought by comedian Jackie Mason against a religious organization arising from the use of Mr. Mason’s name and likeness in a parody on a religious tract.{{ FIELD }}Paul Fakler advises and helps favorably resolve cases for companies in the streaming, broadcasting, media, software, and other industries to advance their business objectives. Paul offers clients representation guided by a rich understanding of the intersection between music (and other content), technology, and business. He frequently speaks and publishes on legal developments in these fields and has over twenty-five years of experience litigating seminal cases involving the application of copyright and related law to digital media.\nAlthough he helps clients with issues across many types of content, Paul has particularly deep experience resolving copyright issues relating to music, where clients operating at the cutting edge of technology require equally innovative legal representation. Paul offers creative solutions based on his deep understanding of copyright law and technology through counseling, government relations, and – when necessary – litigation.\nAs an experienced copyright lawyer, former software developer and amateur musician, he is also proficient in software copyright litigation and has been advising clients regarding copyright issues related to machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies for over a decade. He is one of the few lawyers in the country with extensive first-chair experience before the Copyright Royalty Board and other royalty rate setting venues.\nHis experience spans many issues, including:\n\nCopyright issues implicated by the training and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning\nDigital media and other technologies\nMusic licensing and copyright royalty rate litigation\nRoyalty audits and payment disputes\nCopyright infringement disputes\nFair use and other defenses\nThe DMCA and its safe harbor for online service providers\nCopyright policy matters\nGovernment affairs\n\nLitigation \u0026amp; Licensing\nPaul has litigated numerous high-profile copyright cases involving digital media, copyright, and the Internet. He routinely represents digital music services, as well as other media, software, and consumer products companies, in negotiations and disputes with record labels, music publishers, and other rights holders. His clients in these groundbreaking cases have included MP3.com, Yahoo!, Veoh, MediaNet, Sirius XM Radio, Pandora Media, Bill Graham Archives, ExpressVPN, Private Internet Access, and Music Choice. Paul obtained the only two royalty rate reductions ever granted by the Copyright Royalty Board (or its predecessors) and often makes new law on issues such as the DMCA safe harbor and fair use through representing clients in bet-the-company copyright infringement litigation across many industries.\nCounseling\nClients seek Paul’s counsel in copyright, trademark, right of publicity, entertainment, computer, and Internet law issues in diverse industries, including the music, motion picture, publishing, software development, data security, and digital media industries.\nGovernment Relations\nHe also advises on strategies for shaping copyright policy and represents clients’ interest before government entities that impact the copyright ecosystem, such as Congress, the Copyright Office, and the Department of Justice.\nClients served by Paul have included Sirius XM, Pandora, Music Choice, the Orchestra Music Licensing Association, Google, the Television Music Licensing Committee, MediaNet, MP3.com, LaunchCast, Veoh Networks, and Express VPN. Partner “Top Music Lawyer” Billboard Magazine Ranked as a leading Media and Entertainment litigator, and Copyright and Trademark lawyer Chambers \u0026amp; Partners USA Ranked The Legal 500 Named a WIPR leader World IP Review Ranked a “Premier IP Star (Litigation)” in New York Managing Intellectual Property Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia New York Clerked for the Hon. Peter T. Fay, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit New York State Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section, Former Chair Copyright Society of the USA, Member Law Clerk, Hon. Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Pandora Media in group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora’s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license rights to the underlying jokes in addition to their existing licenses to stream the sound recordings. Paul served as head of a large, multidisciplinary team not only for Pandora’s defense of these actions, but also in counterclaims against the plaintiffs and Word Collections for violation of various antitrust laws. Music Choice, the world’s first digital music service, in litigation brought by SoundExchange, alleging underpayment of statutory license royalties for Music Choice’s commercial background music service. Several technology companies, from startups to a Fortune 500 semiconductor and software company, advising on the copyright issues raised by the training, commercialization, and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning technologies. The Television Music Licensing Committee in connection with negotiations and potential rate court litigation against various Performing Rights Organizations. Bill Graham Archives, operator of the Wolfgang’s and Concert Vault music services, in class action copyright infringement litigation arising from allegations that the company failed to secure mechanical and synchronization licenses for on-demand streaming of its collection of live concert audio and video recordings on its websites. Digital music service MediaNet in litigations brought by various songwriters and music publishers relating to mechanical license requirements, leading to favorable settlements. MP3.com digital music service in various copyright infringement lawsuits brought by record labels and music publishers relating to music streaming service, including litigation of whether musical sound recordings are works made for hire under the Copyright Act. Yahoo! in a copyright case brought by the recording industry, determining the eligibility of Yahoo!’s LaunchCast webcasting service for a statutory copyright license. Symphonic rock band Trans-Siberian Orchestra in copyright infringement case relating to album art and band merchandise, leading to favorable settlement. Scottish software developer in copyright infringement case brought by its competitor, one of the world’s largest ATM hardware and software companies. Prominent law firm in copyright infringement case relating to computer software used to process specialized financial transactions, successfully reversing preliminary injunction on appeal to the Second Circuit. Publications International, Ltd. in a case brought by the makers of Beanie Babies plush toys arising out of the publication of a Beanie Babies collector’s guide. Several Virtual Private Network (VPN) service providers, including ExpressVPN and Private Internet Access, in bet-the-industry copyright litigation brought by a group of independent movie production companies in courts throughout the country, seeking to hold VPN providers liable for the alleged movie piracy of individual consumers using VPN services. Recently negotiated favorable settlement for two VPNs, while proceeding to litigation for another. Major cosmetics company in connection with copyright infringement claims brought by major record and music publishing companies, based upon the posting or re-posting of videos that contain background music on social media accounts, including those by influencers and ordinary consumers. Music Choice in connection with the current Preexisting Subscription Service license rate proceeding (SDARS IV) before the Copyright Royalty Board, as well as every prior rate proceeding for Music Choice since the creation of the CRB. Obtained the second rate decrease in the history of the CRB (and its predecessors) in same year when other licensees’ rates were increased by over 40%. Recently won appeal of ancillary issue before the D.C. Circuit, obtaining rare reversal of both the Register of Copyrights and the Board. Trade association Orchestra Music Licensing Association (“OMLA”), representing the interests of symphony orchestras in connection with various music rights and licensing issues, including Performing Rights Organization license negotiations, the Copyright Office’s “technical measures” study, and disputes regarding the creation and use of custom orchestrations of popular music by “pops” orchestras. Sirius XM Radio, Music Choice, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, and other music licensees in connection with the Department of Justice’s 2014-2015 and 2019-2021 reviews of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. In both review proceedings, Paul’s work resulted in DOJ closing the review without making any of the harmful changes requested by ASCAP, BMI, and music publishers. Various digital music services and other music licensees in connection with the negotiation, drafting, and enactment of the Music Modernization Act, including assisting clients in preparing for testimony at congressional hearings, lobbying, and obtaining key changes in the legislation to advance clients’ interests. Sirius XM Satellite Radio in the Webcasting IV royalty rate proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board, resulting in the first royalty rate decrease ever granted by the Board or its predecessors. National trade association for broadcasters and Music Choice in connection with Copyright Office music licensing policy hearings. The unsecured creditors’ committee in the Cengage Learning bankruptcy, the largest Chapter 11 filing of 2013. Developed a novel copyright strategy that placed the liens on all the debtor’s copyrights at risk, leading to a significantly increased recovery for the unsecured creditors. Sylvain Sylvain, founding member of seminal proto-punk band New York Dolls, successfully obtaining cancellation of trademark registration improperly obtained by David Johansen’s personal corporation. Members of The Allman Brothers Band in litigation against UMG Recordings, Inc. for failure to pay royalties at the correct rate for digital downloads and other digital exploitation of several classic albums by The Allman Brothers Band. Famous artist Greg Hildebrandt, in DMCA fraudulent takedown notice litigation. First Niagara Insurance Brokers in $530 million trademark infringement action against First Niagara Financial Group. Bill Graham Archives LLC with respect to various copyright, trademark, right of publicity, and other intellectual property disputes relating to the operation of its Wolfgang’s Vault website and exploitation of its rights to a large collection of sound recordings, poster art, and vintage rock and roll memorabilia. Domain name registrar Register.com in obtaining a preliminary injunction, affirmed on appeal, stopping the defendant from harvesting customer data from Register.com’s WHOIS database. An individual client in action to obtain subpoenas to trace identity of defendants who had posted defamatory statements on Internet forums. A religious organization in a trademark action relating to the unauthorized use of the client’s trademark in a third-level domain name. Caesar’s World, Inc. in one of the first in rem cases brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Defeated preliminary injunction action brought by comedian Jackie Mason against a religious organization arising from the use of Mr. Mason’s name and likeness in a parody on a religious tract.","searchable_name":"Paul Fakler","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445605,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7311,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Ferguson is recognized among the leading patent lawyers in the United States. He has 35 years of experience representing Fortune 100 innovator companies before all of the major patent law venues\u0026mdash;the ITC, district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB\u0026mdash;in high-stakes IP disputes involving an array of technologies. A leading publication described him as a \u0026ldquo;master technician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian represents clients in all phases of patent infringement and validity disputes before U.S. district courts, Section 337 investigations before the ITC, and adversarial matters before the PTAB, which includes successfully representing clients in nearly 150\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings. He also has substantial experience litigating patent-related appellate proceedings, including dozens of appeals before the Federal Circuit, where he has argued over 20 times. Additionally, Brian has a broad range of first-chair trial and pre-trial experience in both U.S. district courts and at the ITC. In addition to his patent work, Brian has experience handling other intellectual property disputes, including trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigations. Among his pro bono activities, he has assisted inventors with preparing and filing patent and trademark applications. In 2024, Brian was named Chair of The Sedona Conference\u0026rsquo;s Working Group 10 on \u0026ldquo;Best Practices in Patent Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian has a degree in electrical engineering and is regularly called upon to litigate cases involving sophisticated technologies, including analog and digital integrated circuit designs, computer source code and software design, wearable fitness technology, semiconductor processes, medical technology such as heart valve and annuloplasty devices, injection devices, magnetic image resonance technology, airplane engine design, internet technology, the Internet of Things (IOT), telecommunications hardware and software, digital printing technology, digital cameras, predictive text, and speech recognition technology. He also has handled numerous matters in the chemical space, including batteries and herbicides.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is regularly recognized by international business and industry publications as a leader in patent law. Since 2013, he has been a recommended lawyer nationwide by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e, including in the areas of patent litigation and ITC proceedings and recognized as a \u0026ldquo;Patent Star\u0026rdquo; in Washington, D.C. by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u0026rsquo;s IP Stars.\u003c/em\u003e Since 2012, he has been named among the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Patent Practitioners by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, which recently stated that Brian\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;niche lies in cases involving sophisticated technologies, as he leverages his engineering background to offer tailored insight.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has also called him a \u0026ldquo;veteran enforcer and protector for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s major technology companies,\u0026rdquo; and noted that he is a \u0026ldquo;master tactician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo; In 2012, he was recognized as a \u0026ldquo;BTI Client Service All-Star\u0026rdquo; by BTI Consulting Group. He also has been repeatedly recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is a respected thought leader in the technology sector and in academia. For several years, he taught a course on patent litigation as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law. He also regularly authors articles on patent litigation and technology topics, including the \u0026ldquo;Discovery and Privilege\u0026rdquo; chapter in the book\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePatent Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(PLI Press).\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"brian-ferguson","email":"bferguson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eCore Scientific\u003c/strong\u003e in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading U.S. home goods supplier\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel in numerous \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e and post-grant review proceedings for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading oil and gas exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor\u0026rsquo;s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s top technology companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board\u0026rsquo;s invalidity finding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003einnovator medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in PTAB\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading marine technology provider\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to an \u003cstrong\u003einternational technology conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDozens of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of software systems for healthcare providers\u003c/strong\u003e in multi-front district court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading innovator sports equipment company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of nicotine delivery products\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003epioneering\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003esemiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003espeech recognition technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ferguson","nick_name":"Brian","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Brian","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2118,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1991-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026"},{"title":"“Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings”","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal)","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Patents","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2025"},{"title":"Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025"},{"title":"“Patent Star” in Washington, DC","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-e-ferguson/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Ferguson is recognized among the leading patent lawyers in the United States. He has 35 years of experience representing Fortune 100 innovator companies before all of the major patent law venues\u0026mdash;the ITC, district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB\u0026mdash;in high-stakes IP disputes involving an array of technologies. A leading publication described him as a \u0026ldquo;master technician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian represents clients in all phases of patent infringement and validity disputes before U.S. district courts, Section 337 investigations before the ITC, and adversarial matters before the PTAB, which includes successfully representing clients in nearly 150\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings. He also has substantial experience litigating patent-related appellate proceedings, including dozens of appeals before the Federal Circuit, where he has argued over 20 times. Additionally, Brian has a broad range of first-chair trial and pre-trial experience in both U.S. district courts and at the ITC. In addition to his patent work, Brian has experience handling other intellectual property disputes, including trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigations. Among his pro bono activities, he has assisted inventors with preparing and filing patent and trademark applications. In 2024, Brian was named Chair of The Sedona Conference\u0026rsquo;s Working Group 10 on \u0026ldquo;Best Practices in Patent Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian has a degree in electrical engineering and is regularly called upon to litigate cases involving sophisticated technologies, including analog and digital integrated circuit designs, computer source code and software design, wearable fitness technology, semiconductor processes, medical technology such as heart valve and annuloplasty devices, injection devices, magnetic image resonance technology, airplane engine design, internet technology, the Internet of Things (IOT), telecommunications hardware and software, digital printing technology, digital cameras, predictive text, and speech recognition technology. He also has handled numerous matters in the chemical space, including batteries and herbicides.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is regularly recognized by international business and industry publications as a leader in patent law. Since 2013, he has been a recommended lawyer nationwide by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e, including in the areas of patent litigation and ITC proceedings and recognized as a \u0026ldquo;Patent Star\u0026rdquo; in Washington, D.C. by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u0026rsquo;s IP Stars.\u003c/em\u003e Since 2012, he has been named among the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Patent Practitioners by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, which recently stated that Brian\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;niche lies in cases involving sophisticated technologies, as he leverages his engineering background to offer tailored insight.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has also called him a \u0026ldquo;veteran enforcer and protector for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s major technology companies,\u0026rdquo; and noted that he is a \u0026ldquo;master tactician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo; In 2012, he was recognized as a \u0026ldquo;BTI Client Service All-Star\u0026rdquo; by BTI Consulting Group. He also has been repeatedly recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is a respected thought leader in the technology sector and in academia. For several years, he taught a course on patent litigation as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law. He also regularly authors articles on patent litigation and technology topics, including the \u0026ldquo;Discovery and Privilege\u0026rdquo; chapter in the book\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePatent Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(PLI Press).\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eCore Scientific\u003c/strong\u003e in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading U.S. home goods supplier\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel in numerous \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e and post-grant review proceedings for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading oil and gas exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor\u0026rsquo;s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s top technology companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board\u0026rsquo;s invalidity finding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003einnovator medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in PTAB\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading marine technology provider\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to an \u003cstrong\u003einternational technology conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDozens of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of software systems for healthcare providers\u003c/strong\u003e in multi-front district court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading innovator sports equipment company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of nicotine delivery products\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003epioneering\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003esemiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003espeech recognition technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026"},{"title":"“Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings”","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal)","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Patents","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2025"},{"title":"Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025"},{"title":"“Patent Star” in Washington, DC","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13350}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-05T14:46:01.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-05T14:46:01.000Z","searchable_text":"Ferguson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Patexia, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Patents\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WIPR Leaders, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Patent Star” in Washington, DC\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to Core Scientific in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to a leading U.S. home goods supplier in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics in a patent case against a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading medical device company in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel in numerous inter partes and post-grant review proceedings for a leading oil and gas exploration company. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor’s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to one of the world’s top technology companies in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\nDistrict court litigation, inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board’s invalidity finding.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\nDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\nDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\nDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\nA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\nMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology.{{ FIELD }}Defending a leading international insurance company in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading manufacturing company in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading chemical company in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology.{{ FIELD }}Representing an innovator medical device company in PTAB inter partesreview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading marine technology provider in district court and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to an international technology conglomerate and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\nDozens of inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\nDistrict court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\nDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading provider of software systems for healthcare providers in multi-front district court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading innovator sports equipment company in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading provider of nicotine delivery products in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for a pioneering semiconductor company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for a leading international insurance company and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for a speech recognition technology company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.{{ FIELD }}Brian Ferguson is recognized among the leading patent lawyers in the United States. He has 35 years of experience representing Fortune 100 innovator companies before all of the major patent law venues—the ITC, district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB—in high-stakes IP disputes involving an array of technologies. A leading publication described him as a “master technician” who “calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.”\nBrian represents clients in all phases of patent infringement and validity disputes before U.S. district courts, Section 337 investigations before the ITC, and adversarial matters before the PTAB, which includes successfully representing clients in nearly 150 inter partes review proceedings. He also has substantial experience litigating patent-related appellate proceedings, including dozens of appeals before the Federal Circuit, where he has argued over 20 times. Additionally, Brian has a broad range of first-chair trial and pre-trial experience in both U.S. district courts and at the ITC. In addition to his patent work, Brian has experience handling other intellectual property disputes, including trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigations. Among his pro bono activities, he has assisted inventors with preparing and filing patent and trademark applications. In 2024, Brian was named Chair of The Sedona Conference’s Working Group 10 on “Best Practices in Patent Litigation.”\nBrian has a degree in electrical engineering and is regularly called upon to litigate cases involving sophisticated technologies, including analog and digital integrated circuit designs, computer source code and software design, wearable fitness technology, semiconductor processes, medical technology such as heart valve and annuloplasty devices, injection devices, magnetic image resonance technology, airplane engine design, internet technology, the Internet of Things (IOT), telecommunications hardware and software, digital printing technology, digital cameras, predictive text, and speech recognition technology. He also has handled numerous matters in the chemical space, including batteries and herbicides.\nBrian is regularly recognized by international business and industry publications as a leader in patent law. Since 2013, he has been a recommended lawyer nationwide by The Legal 500 US, including in the areas of patent litigation and ITC proceedings and recognized as a “Patent Star” in Washington, D.C. by Managing Intellectual Property’s IP Stars. Since 2012, he has been named among the World’s Leading Patent Practitioners by the IAM Patent 1000, which recently stated that Brian’s “niche lies in cases involving sophisticated technologies, as he leverages his engineering background to offer tailored insight.” IAM has also called him a “veteran enforcer and protector for some of the world’s major technology companies,” and noted that he is a “master tactician” who “calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.” In 2012, he was recognized as a “BTI Client Service All-Star” by BTI Consulting Group. He also has been repeatedly recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® and Super Lawyers.\nBrian is a respected thought leader in the technology sector and in academia. For several years, he taught a course on patent litigation as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law. He also regularly authors articles on patent litigation and technology topics, including the “Discovery and Privilege” chapter in the book Patent Litigation (PLI Press). Partner Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026 “Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings” Patexia, 2024–2025 “Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023 “Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal) The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024 “500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent Lawdragon, 2022–2026 Recognized for Patents WIPR Leaders, 2025 Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025 “Patent Star” in Washington, DC Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025 Union College  Union College Albany Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office District of Columbia New York Member, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association Chair of Working Group 10 for “Best Practices in Patent Litigation”, The Sedona Conference, 2024-present Member, PTAB Bar Association Former member, Board of Directors of Give an Hour, a non-profit organization devoted to providing mental health services to U.S. veterans and their families Serving as lead counsel to Core Scientific in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain. Serving as co-lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips. Serving as lead counsel to a leading U.S. home goods supplier in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products. Serving as lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD. Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics in a patent case against a competitor. Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading medical device company in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial. Serving as lead counsel in numerous inter partes and post-grant review proceedings for a leading oil and gas exploration company. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor’s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter. Serving as lead counsel to one of the world’s top technology companies in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\nDistrict court litigation, inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board’s invalidity finding.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\nDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\nDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\nDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\nA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\nMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology. Defending a leading international insurance company in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion. Representing a leading manufacturing company in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles. Representing a leading chemical company in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology. Representing an innovator medical device company in PTAB inter partesreview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology. Representing a leading marine technology provider in district court and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating. Serving as lead counsel to an international technology conglomerate and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\nDozens of inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\nDistrict court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\nDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request. Representing a leading provider of software systems for healthcare providers in multi-front district court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology. Representing a leading innovator sports equipment company in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications. Representing a leading provider of nicotine delivery products in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products. Served as lead counsel for a pioneering semiconductor company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology. Served as lead counsel for a leading international insurance company and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology. Served as lead counsel for a speech recognition technology company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.","searchable_name":"Brian E. Ferguson","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443131,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5124,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.\u0026nbsp; He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.\u0026nbsp; The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs. \u0026nbsp;He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.\u0026nbsp; He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.\u0026nbsp; Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.\u0026nbsp; Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client\u0026rsquo;s patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.\u0026nbsp; He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the \u0026ldquo;386\u0026rdquo; trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom speaks frequently on patent issues.\u0026nbsp; He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.\u0026nbsp; He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,\u0026nbsp; as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u003c/em\u003e since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of\u0026nbsp; The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the \u0026ldquo;Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\u0026rdquo; by the Daily Journal.\u0026nbsp; He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEuro Money\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"thomas-friel","email":"tfriel@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 415 990 7997","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.aofs","index":0,"source":"aofs"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Friel","nick_name":"Tom","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Thomas","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2237,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1977-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":[{"title":"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law","detail":"BEST LAWYERS USA"},{"title":"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California","detail":"Daily Journal"},{"title":"Recognized, IP Star ","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Listed, IP Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property ","detail":"Euromoney"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts","detail":"Euromoney"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.\u0026nbsp; He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.\u0026nbsp; The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs. \u0026nbsp;He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.\u0026nbsp; He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.\u0026nbsp; Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.\u0026nbsp; Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client\u0026rsquo;s patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.\u0026nbsp; He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the \u0026ldquo;386\u0026rdquo; trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom speaks frequently on patent issues.\u0026nbsp; He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.\u0026nbsp; He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,\u0026nbsp; as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u003c/em\u003e since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of\u0026nbsp; The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the \u0026ldquo;Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\u0026rdquo; by the Daily Journal.\u0026nbsp; He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEuro Money\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law","detail":"BEST LAWYERS USA"},{"title":"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California","detail":"Daily Journal"},{"title":"Recognized, IP Star ","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Listed, IP Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property ","detail":"Euromoney"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts","detail":"Euromoney"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5702}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-19T20:04:25.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-19T20:04:25.000Z","searchable_text":"Friel{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BEST LAWYERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, IP Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, IP Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney\"}{{ FIELD }}Tom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.  He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.  The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs.  He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\nTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.  He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.  Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies. \nTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.  Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client’s patents.\nTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.  He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the “386” trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\nTom speaks frequently on patent issues.  He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.  He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,  as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked Chambers USA, Legal 500, Managing Intellectual Property since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of  The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the “Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California” by the Daily Journal.  He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by IAM Patent 1000, Super Lawyers, and Euro Money.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice. Partner Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law BEST LAWYERS USA Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California Daily Journal Recognized, IP Star  Managing Intellectual Property Listed, Patent Litigation Legal 500 Listed, IP Litigation Chambers USA Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer IAM Patent 1000 Listed, Patent Litigation Best Lawyers in America Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer Super Lawyers Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property  Euromoney Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts Euromoney University of Michigan-Ann Arbor  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School California American Bar Association Santa Clara County Bar Association International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association The Bar Association of San Francisco","searchable_name":"Thomas J. Friel, Jr. (Tom)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":441855,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6462,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoy Falik is a trial litigator with a penchant for the complex. He has litigated various technologies ranging from computer games to medical devices to dashcams, all the way from pitch to trial.\u0026nbsp;Roy\u0026rsquo;s software engineering experience makes him a valuable asset to any patent and technology-related cases. Whether he's working with experts or arguing before a court, Roy's ability to simplify and streamline a technical argument is invaluable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring law school Roy gained experience as a judicial intern for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoy earned his degree with honors from The University of Texas at Austin School of Law, where he started honing his focus on intellectual property. As a student, Roy received a Dean's Achievement award in his patent law class and was recognized as a Strauss Center Cyber Fellow. Roy also received Dean's Achievement awards in space law and digital evidence classes. He served as the Managing Editor for the Texas IP Law Journal and as a student member of the Yeakel IP Inn of Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince then, Roy has taken an active role in his patent cases. He has argued dispositive motions and Markman hearings, taken and defended depositions, and even directed witnesses as trial. His experience at all points throughout the case lifecycle and passion for creativity are an important asset to any team.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"roy-falik","email":"rfalik@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Falik","nick_name":"Roy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Roy","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2022-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":2,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/roy-falik/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoy Falik is a trial litigator with a penchant for the complex. He has litigated various technologies ranging from computer games to medical devices to dashcams, all the way from pitch to trial.\u0026nbsp;Roy\u0026rsquo;s software engineering experience makes him a valuable asset to any patent and technology-related cases. Whether he's working with experts or arguing before a court, Roy's ability to simplify and streamline a technical argument is invaluable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring law school Roy gained experience as a judicial intern for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoy earned his degree with honors from The University of Texas at Austin School of Law, where he started honing his focus on intellectual property. As a student, Roy received a Dean's Achievement award in his patent law class and was recognized as a Strauss Center Cyber Fellow. Roy also received Dean's Achievement awards in space law and digital evidence classes. He served as the Managing Editor for the Texas IP Law Journal and as a student member of the Yeakel IP Inn of Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince then, Roy has taken an active role in his patent cases. He has argued dispositive motions and Markman hearings, taken and defended depositions, and even directed witnesses as trial. His experience at all points throughout the case lifecycle and passion for creativity are an important asset to any team.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10393}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-10-31T21:59:46.000Z","updated_at":"2025-10-31T21:59:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Falik{{ FIELD }}Roy Falik is a trial litigator with a penchant for the complex. He has litigated various technologies ranging from computer games to medical devices to dashcams, all the way from pitch to trial. Roy’s software engineering experience makes him a valuable asset to any patent and technology-related cases. Whether he's working with experts or arguing before a court, Roy's ability to simplify and streamline a technical argument is invaluable. \nDuring law school Roy gained experience as a judicial intern for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.\nRoy earned his degree with honors from The University of Texas at Austin School of Law, where he started honing his focus on intellectual property. As a student, Roy received a Dean's Achievement award in his patent law class and was recognized as a Strauss Center Cyber Fellow. Roy also received Dean's Achievement awards in space law and digital evidence classes. He served as the Managing Editor for the Texas IP Law Journal and as a student member of the Yeakel IP Inn of Court. \nSince then, Roy has taken an active role in his patent cases. He has argued dispositive motions and Markman hearings, taken and defended depositions, and even directed witnesses as trial. His experience at all points throughout the case lifecycle and passion for creativity are an important asset to any team. Associate The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Colorado","searchable_name":"Roy Falik","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}