{"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":"Real Estate","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":"135","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"B","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442365,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e","slug":"bruce-baber","email":"bbaber@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-917-749-1247","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":17}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baber","nick_name":"Bruce","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Bruce","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"W.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaber/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","searchable_text":"Baber{{ FIELD }}Bruce Baber focuses his practice in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.\nBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\nBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\nFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by Chambers USA. He has also been listed in multiple editions of The Best Lawyers in America, The Legal 500, The World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World’s Leading Trademark Professionals, The International Who’s Who of Trademark Lawyers, numerous Super Lawyer lists and other leading industry publications.\nA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\n \nAdmitted only in Georgia. Bruce W Baber Partner Princeton University  Duke University Duke University School of Law Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Best Lawyers In America.","searchable_name":"Bruce W. Baber","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442789,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5487,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eStephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client\u0026rsquo;s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is \u0026ldquo;[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.\u0026rdquo; In common with his colleagues, \u0026ldquo;he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective\u0026rdquo;; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the \u0026ldquo;[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers \u0026ldquo; by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"stephen-baskin","email":"sbaskin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (\u0026ldquo;TCL\u0026rdquo;). Case favorably settled for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCraig Alexander v. a major international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(GA: DeKalb Country State Court)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client\u0026rsquo;s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton\u0026rsquo;s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (\u0026ldquo;GM\u0026rdquo;) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSoundView Innovations v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client\u0026rsquo;s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLighthouse Consulting Group, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright\u0026rsquo;s decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM\u0026rsquo;s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParallel Iron v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eand US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital, LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).\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":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baskin","nick_name":"Steve","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Stephen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":345,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"A great client-oriented attorney\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked “Patent 1000”","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"title":"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”","detail":"Washingtonian Magazine"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eStephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client\u0026rsquo;s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is \u0026ldquo;[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.\u0026rdquo; In common with his colleagues, \u0026ldquo;he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective\u0026rdquo;; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the \u0026ldquo;[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers \u0026ldquo; by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (\u0026ldquo;TCL\u0026rdquo;). Case favorably settled for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCraig Alexander v. a major international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(GA: DeKalb Country State Court)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client\u0026rsquo;s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton\u0026rsquo;s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (\u0026ldquo;GM\u0026rdquo;) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSoundView Innovations v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client\u0026rsquo;s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLighthouse Consulting Group, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright\u0026rsquo;s decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM\u0026rsquo;s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParallel Iron v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eand US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital, LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"A great client-oriented attorney\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked “Patent 1000”","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"title":"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”","detail":"Washingtonian Magazine"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6942}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:20.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:20.000Z","searchable_text":"Baskin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A great client-oriented attorney\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked “Patent 1000”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Asset Management\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washingtonian Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc. (D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.{{ FIELD }}In the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (“TCL”). Case favorably settled for client.{{ FIELD }}Encore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.{{ FIELD }}Craig Alexander v. a major international airline (GA: DeKalb Country State Court). Representing a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client’s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.{{ FIELD }}Hand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al. (D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.{{ FIELD }}Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. (N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.{{ FIELD }}Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton’s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.{{ FIELD }}SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc (N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.{{ FIELD }}Encore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Symbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline (N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.{{ FIELD }}Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.{{ FIELD }}Amtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al (International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities. Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.{{ FIELD }}SoundView Innovations v. a major international airline (District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client’s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.{{ FIELD }}Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC (WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright’s decision.{{ FIELD }}Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.{{ FIELD }}EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.{{ FIELD }}Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.{{ FIELD }}NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.{{ FIELD }}Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.{{ FIELD }}St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.{{ FIELD }}Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.{{ FIELD }}Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.{{ FIELD }}Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.{{ FIELD }}Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Aeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing a major international airline and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics, et al.) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).{{ FIELD }}CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).{{ FIELD }}MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Autoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).{{ FIELD }}A major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).{{ FIELD }}Stephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25 years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.\nSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client’s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality. \nSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is “[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.” In common with his colleagues, “he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective”; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the “[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers “ by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\nSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA. Partner \"A great client-oriented attorney\" Chambers USA \"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\" Chambers USA Ranked “Patent 1000” Intellectual Asset Management Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers” Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present Recognized as a “Best Lawyer” Washingtonian Magazine Ohio University  Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Virginia Chair of Executive Area Board at American Cancer Society Board of Directors at ThanksUSA The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc. (D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data. In the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (“TCL”). Case favorably settled for client. Encore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation. Craig Alexander v. a major international airline (GA: DeKalb Country State Court). Representing a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client’s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool. Hand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al. (D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. (N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton’s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y. SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc (N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid. Encore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims. Symbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline (N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes. Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices. Amtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al (International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities. Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234. SoundView Innovations v. a major international airline (District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client’s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses. Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC (WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright’s decision. Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team. EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology. Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device. NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC. Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages. St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction. Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes. Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems. Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds. Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013). Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013). Aeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing a major international airline and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011). Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics, et al.) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011). Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013). Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010). Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010). Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011). Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011). CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011). Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010). Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011). Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011). MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011). Autoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012). A major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).","searchable_name":"Stephen E. Baskin (Steve)","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":447510,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5781,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.\u0026rdquo; - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his\u0026nbsp;client's business as a whole.\u0026nbsp;He\u0026nbsp;works closely with his client\u0026nbsp;to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for\u0026nbsp;aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business.\u0026nbsp;Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side\u0026rsquo;s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5,\u0026nbsp;Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and\u0026nbsp;Kodiak Robotics\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a\u0026nbsp;wide range\u0026nbsp;of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure\u0026nbsp;and protect\u0026nbsp;trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies\u0026nbsp;through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"shane-brun","email":"sbrun@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a cybersecurity company against a competitor\u0026rsquo;s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.\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":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brun","nick_name":"Shane","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Shane","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\"","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2017"},{"title":"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor","detail":"The National Law Journal"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.\u0026rdquo; - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his\u0026nbsp;client's business as a whole.\u0026nbsp;He\u0026nbsp;works closely with his client\u0026nbsp;to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for\u0026nbsp;aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business.\u0026nbsp;Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side\u0026rsquo;s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5,\u0026nbsp;Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and\u0026nbsp;Kodiak Robotics\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a\u0026nbsp;wide range\u0026nbsp;of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure\u0026nbsp;and protect\u0026nbsp;trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies\u0026nbsp;through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a cybersecurity company against a competitor\u0026rsquo;s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\"","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2017"},{"title":"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor","detail":"The National Law Journal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8412},{"id":8412}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-14T09:32:06.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-14T09:32:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Brun{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Cited by client as \\\" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The National Law Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}Defended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.{{ FIELD }}Defended a cybersecurity company against a competitor’s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.{{ FIELD }}Defended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.{{ FIELD }}Defended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.{{ FIELD }}Hired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.{{ FIELD }}Defended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.{{ FIELD }}Represented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.{{ FIELD }}\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.” - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his client's business as a whole. He works closely with his client to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business. Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side’s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\nShane has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5, Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and Kodiak Robotics in patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a wide range of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure and protect trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.\nShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\nShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.  \nShane sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles Partner Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\" IAM Patent 1000 Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals IAM Patent 1000, 2017 Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor The National Law Journal University of Arkansas University of Arkansas School of Law University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Member, American Bar Association Member, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association Member, San Francisco Bar Association Board member, Western Center on Law \u0026amp; Poverty Member, Educational Foundation of Orinda and Arkansas Alumni Association Defended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations. Defended a cybersecurity company against a competitor’s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims. Defended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case. Defended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims. Hired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client. Represented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial. Represented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client. Defended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action. Represented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.","searchable_name":"Shane Brun","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}