{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"135","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"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},{"id":442826,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5831,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBob Cooper's extensive experience includes representing clients in complex commercial litigation and governmental investigations, conducting internal investigations,\u0026nbsp;and counseling global companies on their most challenging and significant business issues. His particular expertise in antitrust and competition matters leads clients to seek his judgment and strategic advice on mergers, acquisitions and other business transactions. Bob also regularly advises clients on dealings with competitors, suppliers and customers.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBob has represented clients in a wide variety of industries, including airlines, agribusiness, banking, biotechnology, commercial real estate, healthcare, health insurance, healthcare technology, insurance/reinsurance, Internet, payment systems, private equity, sports media, telecommunications, and telehealth. He has served as lead counsel or co-lead counsel before a number of federal and state courts, in arbitration proceedings and mediations, and before the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and numerous state Attorneys General.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"robert-cooper","email":"rcooper@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international e-commerce company in a multijurisdictional consumer protection investigation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a technology company in defending predatory pricing claims by a competitor (confidential settlement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global automobile manufacturer in connection with competition issues and inquiries in the United States, EU and China\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead multiple internal investigations for a major biotechnology company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial and appellate counsel in the FTC's challenge to a regional health system's proposed acquisition of a multi-specialty physician practice\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead defense of six companies in litigation alleging breach of licensing agreements and prosecution of antitrust counterclaims (confidential settlement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained antitrust clearance for multiple transactions in various industries, including consumer goods manufacturing, healthcare, assisted living and commercial and private aviation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several integrated health systems in connection with competition and related issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major healthcare technology company in connection with numerous competition and strategic issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global Internet service provider on competition and regulatory issues in the U.S. and Europe, and before the DOJ and FCC in connection with several telecom and media mergers\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as co-lead trial counsel in defending a Fortune 100 company in a multi-hundred million-dollar arbitration alleging breach of a technology licensing agreement and tortious interference (no relief awarded to claimants)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a leading payment card network in antitrust litigation against its principal competitors (client obtained a settlement in excess of $4 billion)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a leading payment card network against claims by the Department of Justice and various merchants (both a class and opt outs) alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Chinese manufacturer in connection with U.S. antitrust issues associated with the acquisition of a competitor\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international private equity firm in an SEC investigation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a global airline in connection with private litigation challenging a merger with another global carrier, and represented that airline in connection with the DOJ's review of the merger\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead an internal investigation for a Bermuda-based reinsurer, and represented the non-executive members of the Board in connection with related governmental investigations\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":17,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Cooper","nick_name":"Bob","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. William C. O'Kelley, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"1994 - 1996"}],"first_name":"Robert","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":659,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with distinction","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1994-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-cooper-ba696910/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBob Cooper's extensive experience includes representing clients in complex commercial litigation and governmental investigations, conducting internal investigations,\u0026nbsp;and counseling global companies on their most challenging and significant business issues. His particular expertise in antitrust and competition matters leads clients to seek his judgment and strategic advice on mergers, acquisitions and other business transactions. Bob also regularly advises clients on dealings with competitors, suppliers and customers.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBob has represented clients in a wide variety of industries, including airlines, agribusiness, banking, biotechnology, commercial real estate, healthcare, health insurance, healthcare technology, insurance/reinsurance, Internet, payment systems, private equity, sports media, telecommunications, and telehealth. He has served as lead counsel or co-lead counsel before a number of federal and state courts, in arbitration proceedings and mediations, and before the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and numerous state Attorneys General.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international e-commerce company in a multijurisdictional consumer protection investigation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a technology company in defending predatory pricing claims by a competitor (confidential settlement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global automobile manufacturer in connection with competition issues and inquiries in the United States, EU and China\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead multiple internal investigations for a major biotechnology company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial and appellate counsel in the FTC's challenge to a regional health system's proposed acquisition of a multi-specialty physician practice\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead defense of six companies in litigation alleging breach of licensing agreements and prosecution of antitrust counterclaims (confidential settlement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained antitrust clearance for multiple transactions in various industries, including consumer goods manufacturing, healthcare, assisted living and commercial and private aviation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several integrated health systems in connection with competition and related issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major healthcare technology company in connection with numerous competition and strategic issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global Internet service provider on competition and regulatory issues in the U.S. and Europe, and before the DOJ and FCC in connection with several telecom and media mergers\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as co-lead trial counsel in defending a Fortune 100 company in a multi-hundred million-dollar arbitration alleging breach of a technology licensing agreement and tortious interference (no relief awarded to claimants)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a leading payment card network in antitrust litigation against its principal competitors (client obtained a settlement in excess of $4 billion)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a leading payment card network against claims by the Department of Justice and various merchants (both a class and opt outs) alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Chinese manufacturer in connection with U.S. antitrust issues associated with the acquisition of a competitor\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international private equity firm in an SEC investigation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a global airline in connection with private litigation challenging a merger with another global carrier, and represented that airline in connection with the DOJ's review of the merger\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead an internal investigation for a Bermuda-based reinsurer, and represented the non-executive members of the Board in connection with related governmental investigations\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8262}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:16.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Cooper{{ FIELD }}Represented an international e-commerce company in a multijurisdictional consumer protection investigation{{ FIELD }}Represented a technology company in defending predatory pricing claims by a competitor (confidential settlement){{ FIELD }}Represented a global automobile manufacturer in connection with competition issues and inquiries in the United States, EU and China{{ FIELD }}Lead multiple internal investigations for a major biotechnology company{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial and appellate counsel in the FTC's challenge to a regional health system's proposed acquisition of a multi-specialty physician practice{{ FIELD }}Lead defense of six companies in litigation alleging breach of licensing agreements and prosecution of antitrust counterclaims (confidential settlement){{ FIELD }}Obtained antitrust clearance for multiple transactions in various industries, including consumer goods manufacturing, healthcare, assisted living and commercial and private aviation{{ FIELD }}Represented several integrated health systems in connection with competition and related issues{{ FIELD }}Represented a major healthcare technology company in connection with numerous competition and strategic issues{{ FIELD }}Represented a global Internet service provider on competition and regulatory issues in the U.S. and Europe, and before the DOJ and FCC in connection with several telecom and media mergers{{ FIELD }}Served as co-lead trial counsel in defending a Fortune 100 company in a multi-hundred million-dollar arbitration alleging breach of a technology licensing agreement and tortious interference (no relief awarded to claimants){{ FIELD }}Represented a leading payment card network in antitrust litigation against its principal competitors (client obtained a settlement in excess of $4 billion){{ FIELD }}Defended a leading payment card network against claims by the Department of Justice and various merchants (both a class and opt outs) alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act{{ FIELD }}Represented a Chinese manufacturer in connection with U.S. antitrust issues associated with the acquisition of a competitor{{ FIELD }}Represented an international private equity firm in an SEC investigation{{ FIELD }}Defended a global airline in connection with private litigation challenging a merger with another global carrier, and represented that airline in connection with the DOJ's review of the merger{{ FIELD }}Lead an internal investigation for a Bermuda-based reinsurer, and represented the non-executive members of the Board in connection with related governmental investigations{{ FIELD }}Bob Cooper's extensive experience includes representing clients in complex commercial litigation and governmental investigations, conducting internal investigations, and counseling global companies on their most challenging and significant business issues. His particular expertise in antitrust and competition matters leads clients to seek his judgment and strategic advice on mergers, acquisitions and other business transactions. Bob also regularly advises clients on dealings with competitors, suppliers and customers.\nBob has represented clients in a wide variety of industries, including airlines, agribusiness, banking, biotechnology, commercial real estate, healthcare, health insurance, healthcare technology, insurance/reinsurance, Internet, payment systems, private equity, sports media, telecommunications, and telehealth. He has served as lead counsel or co-lead counsel before a number of federal and state courts, in arbitration proceedings and mediations, and before the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and numerous state Attorneys General. Partner Columbia University Columbia University School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia American Bar Association The Economic Club of Washington D.C. Law Clerk, Hon. William C. O'Kelley, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Represented an international e-commerce company in a multijurisdictional consumer protection investigation Represented a technology company in defending predatory pricing claims by a competitor (confidential settlement) Represented a global automobile manufacturer in connection with competition issues and inquiries in the United States, EU and China Lead multiple internal investigations for a major biotechnology company Served as lead trial and appellate counsel in the FTC's challenge to a regional health system's proposed acquisition of a multi-specialty physician practice Lead defense of six companies in litigation alleging breach of licensing agreements and prosecution of antitrust counterclaims (confidential settlement) Obtained antitrust clearance for multiple transactions in various industries, including consumer goods manufacturing, healthcare, assisted living and commercial and private aviation Represented several integrated health systems in connection with competition and related issues Represented a major healthcare technology company in connection with numerous competition and strategic issues Represented a global Internet service provider on competition and regulatory issues in the U.S. and Europe, and before the DOJ and FCC in connection with several telecom and media mergers Served as co-lead trial counsel in defending a Fortune 100 company in a multi-hundred million-dollar arbitration alleging breach of a technology licensing agreement and tortious interference (no relief awarded to claimants) Represented a leading payment card network in antitrust litigation against its principal competitors (client obtained a settlement in excess of $4 billion) Defended a leading payment card network against claims by the Department of Justice and various merchants (both a class and opt outs) alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act Represented a Chinese manufacturer in connection with U.S. antitrust issues associated with the acquisition of a competitor Represented an international private equity firm in an SEC investigation Defended a global airline in connection with private litigation challenging a merger with another global carrier, and represented that airline in connection with the DOJ's review of the merger Lead an internal investigation for a Bermuda-based reinsurer, and represented the non-executive members of the Board in connection with related governmental investigations","searchable_name":"Robert M. Cooper (Bob)","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":431252,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3550,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMr. Dawson focuses on complex commercial litigation, including matters involving contract and technology licensing disputes, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and related commercial torts.\u0026nbsp; He has substantial experience defending class actions and multi-plaintiff mass actions.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Dawson represents both early-stage ventures and Fortune 500 companies in the healthcare, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical-device industries.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Dawson served as law clerk to the Honorable John T. Copenhaver, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Intractable Obscenity Problem 2.0: The Emerging Circuit Split as to the Constitutionality of \"Local Community Standards\" Online, 60 Cath. U. L. Rev. 719 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"matthew-dawson","email":"mdawson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Dawson","nick_name":"Matthew","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, The Honorable John T. Copenhaver, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia","years_held":"2012-2013"},{"name":"Intern, The Honorable Ricardo M. Urbina, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia","years_held":"2011"}],"first_name":"Matthew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":350,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"H.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Editor in Chief, Volume 61","detail":"Catholic University Law Review"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMr. Dawson focuses on complex commercial litigation, including matters involving contract and technology licensing disputes, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and related commercial torts.\u0026nbsp; He has substantial experience defending class actions and multi-plaintiff mass actions.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Dawson represents both early-stage ventures and Fortune 500 companies in the healthcare, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical-device industries.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Dawson served as law clerk to the Honorable John T. Copenhaver, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Intractable Obscenity Problem 2.0: The Emerging Circuit Split as to the Constitutionality of \"Local Community Standards\" Online, 60 Cath. U. L. Rev. 719 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Editor in Chief, Volume 61","detail":"Catholic University Law Review"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10342}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-07-03T04:53:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-07-03T04:53:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Dawson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Editor in Chief, Volume 61\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Catholic University Law Review\"}{{ FIELD }}Mr. Dawson focuses on complex commercial litigation, including matters involving contract and technology licensing disputes, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and related commercial torts.  He has substantial experience defending class actions and multi-plaintiff mass actions.  Mr. Dawson represents both early-stage ventures and Fortune 500 companies in the healthcare, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical-device industries.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Dawson served as law clerk to the Honorable John T. Copenhaver, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.\nPublications\n\nThe Intractable Obscenity Problem 2.0: The Emerging Circuit Split as to the Constitutionality of \"Local Community Standards\" Online, 60 Cath. U. L. Rev. 719 (2011).\n Partner Editor in Chief, Volume 61 Catholic University Law Review Davidson College  Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 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 Maryland Judicial Clerk, The Honorable John T. Copenhaver, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Intern, The Honorable Ricardo M. Urbina, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia","searchable_name":"Matthew H. Dawson","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":444749,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1966,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDr. Eng\u0026rsquo;s practice includes patent litigation, patent prosecution, and transactional matters.\u0026nbsp; Dr. Eng has represented clients in patent infringement lawsuits in federal district courts across the United States as well as before the International Trade Commission, in cases involving microelectronic devices, semiconductor processing, polymer coatings, optical fibers, medical devices, and respiratory protective devices.\u0026nbsp; Dr. Eng\u0026rsquo;s litigation experience includes representing major pharmaceutical companies in Hatch-Waxman (Paragraph IV) litigation.\u0026nbsp; His clients include Fortune 100 companies, as well as small-start up companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr. Eng is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.\u0026nbsp; He has worked on numerous patent prosecution matters in the fields of pharmaceuticals, cosmeceuticals, peptide delivery systems, therapeutic uses of neurotoxins, consumer electronics, fuel cells, biofuels, petroleum refining, polymers and automotive parts.\u0026nbsp; He has drafted numerous patent applications and has successfully prosecuted patent applications to grant in jurisdictions around the world.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Dr. Eng has served as an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall University Law School, where he taught classes on patent drafting and prosecution.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr. Eng has experience drafting non-infringement, invalidity, and freedom-to-operate opinions.\u0026nbsp; He has also performed due diligence reviews in connection with patent licensing and corporate mergers and has drafted and negotiated license agreements and other types of technology transfer agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr. Eng holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Columbia University, and B.S. degrees in both chemistry and physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.\u0026nbsp; Dr. Eng has worked as a post-doctoral fellow at Exxon\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Research Center and at Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies.\u0026nbsp; He was also a Member of Technical Staff at Bell Labs, where he was in charge of developing a research program in semiconductor surface characterization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr. Eng is an author or co-author of 30 technical papers, including two invited reviews.\u0026nbsp; Dr. Eng has also given more than 25 technical talks throughout the United States and abroad, including five invited lectures.\u0026nbsp; He has also lectured around the world on patent enforcement, licensing, and U.S. patent prosecution. Dr. Eng was awarded the Fordham University Legal Writing Award for excellence in legal writing in 2004.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"joseph-eng","email":"jeng@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Eng","nick_name":"Joseph","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Joseph","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDr. Eng\u0026rsquo;s practice includes patent litigation, patent prosecution, and transactional matters.\u0026nbsp; Dr. Eng has represented clients in patent infringement lawsuits in federal district courts across the United States as well as before the International Trade Commission, in cases involving microelectronic devices, semiconductor processing, polymer coatings, optical fibers, medical devices, and respiratory protective devices.\u0026nbsp; Dr. Eng\u0026rsquo;s litigation experience includes representing major pharmaceutical companies in Hatch-Waxman (Paragraph IV) litigation.\u0026nbsp; His clients include Fortune 100 companies, as well as small-start up companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr. Eng is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.\u0026nbsp; He has worked on numerous patent prosecution matters in the fields of pharmaceuticals, cosmeceuticals, peptide delivery systems, therapeutic uses of neurotoxins, consumer electronics, fuel cells, biofuels, petroleum refining, polymers and automotive parts.\u0026nbsp; He has drafted numerous patent applications and has successfully prosecuted patent applications to grant in jurisdictions around the world.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Dr. Eng has served as an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall University Law School, where he taught classes on patent drafting and prosecution.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr. Eng has experience drafting non-infringement, invalidity, and freedom-to-operate opinions.\u0026nbsp; He has also performed due diligence reviews in connection with patent licensing and corporate mergers and has drafted and negotiated license agreements and other types of technology transfer agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr. Eng holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Columbia University, and B.S. degrees in both chemistry and physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.\u0026nbsp; Dr. Eng has worked as a post-doctoral fellow at Exxon\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Research Center and at Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies.\u0026nbsp; He was also a Member of Technical Staff at Bell Labs, where he was in charge of developing a research program in semiconductor surface characterization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr. Eng is an author or co-author of 30 technical papers, including two invited reviews.\u0026nbsp; Dr. Eng has also given more than 25 technical talks throughout the United States and abroad, including five invited lectures.\u0026nbsp; He has also lectured around the world on patent enforcement, licensing, and U.S. patent prosecution. Dr. Eng was awarded the Fordham University Legal Writing Award for excellence in legal writing in 2004.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7154}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-02T16:07:44.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T16:07:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Eng{{ FIELD }}Dr. Eng’s practice includes patent litigation, patent prosecution, and transactional matters.  Dr. Eng has represented clients in patent infringement lawsuits in federal district courts across the United States as well as before the International Trade Commission, in cases involving microelectronic devices, semiconductor processing, polymer coatings, optical fibers, medical devices, and respiratory protective devices.  Dr. Eng’s litigation experience includes representing major pharmaceutical companies in Hatch-Waxman (Paragraph IV) litigation.  His clients include Fortune 100 companies, as well as small-start up companies.\nDr. Eng is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  He has worked on numerous patent prosecution matters in the fields of pharmaceuticals, cosmeceuticals, peptide delivery systems, therapeutic uses of neurotoxins, consumer electronics, fuel cells, biofuels, petroleum refining, polymers and automotive parts.  He has drafted numerous patent applications and has successfully prosecuted patent applications to grant in jurisdictions around the world.  In addition, Dr. Eng has served as an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall University Law School, where he taught classes on patent drafting and prosecution. \nDr. Eng has experience drafting non-infringement, invalidity, and freedom-to-operate opinions.  He has also performed due diligence reviews in connection with patent licensing and corporate mergers and has drafted and negotiated license agreements and other types of technology transfer agreements.\nDr. Eng holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Columbia University, and B.S. degrees in both chemistry and physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Dr. Eng has worked as a post-doctoral fellow at Exxon’s Corporate Research Center and at Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies.  He was also a Member of Technical Staff at Bell Labs, where he was in charge of developing a research program in semiconductor surface characterization.\nDr. Eng is an author or co-author of 30 technical papers, including two invited reviews.  Dr. Eng has also given more than 25 technical talks throughout the United States and abroad, including five invited lectures.  He has also lectured around the world on patent enforcement, licensing, and U.S. patent prosecution. Dr. Eng was awarded the Fordham University Legal Writing Award for excellence in legal writing in 2004. Partner Massachusetts Institute of Technology  Massachusetts Institute of Technology  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law Columbia University Columbia University School of Law Columbia University Columbia University School of Law Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. Patent and Trademark Office New York NJIPLA Board Member AABANY Board member","searchable_name":"Joseph D. Eng, Jr.","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":442750,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5177,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian is\u0026nbsp;a trial attorney who specializes in patent disputes and other complex litigation in state and federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.\u0026nbsp; He routinely represents clients in high-stakes cases\u0026nbsp;involving injunctive relief and hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian's practice focuses on complex patent litigation and \u003cem\u003einter partes \u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings across a wide variety of technologies, including medical devices, enterprise hardware and software, wireless communications, website development, semiconductors, and LEDs.\u0026nbsp; He has experience in all aspects of patent litigation, including developing and implementing case strategies, managing day-to-day discovery and client communications, motion practice, fact and expert depositions, oral argument, trial preparation, and post-trial and appellate briefing.\u0026nbsp; In addition to patent disputes, Brian has litigated trade secret, employment, and contract cases in\u0026nbsp;state and federal courts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"brian-eutermoser","email":"beutermoser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMedline Industries\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e v. C.R. Bard \u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of Illinois) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Medline in multiple district court actions involving urology products and procedures\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Lawrence Communications v. \u003cstrong\u003eMotorola Mobility \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Eastern District of Texas) \u0026ndash; trial counsel for Motorola in a patent case involving speech coders used in cellular communications\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinjan v. \u003cstrong\u003ePalo Alto Networks \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Patent Trial and Appeal Board) \u0026ndash; counsel for Palo Alto Networks in \u003cem\u003einter partes \u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings involving malware detection software\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpen Text \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. Box.com \u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; trial counsel for Open Text in a patent infringement action involving cloud storage systems\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eT3 Media v. \u003cstrong\u003eBBC Worldwide \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(District of Colorado) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for the BBC in a media rights licensing dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHSM Portfolio v. \u003cstrong\u003eQualcomm \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(District of Delaware) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent case involving semiconductor and chipset technology\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuest Software \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. Centrify Corporation \u003c/em\u003e(District of Utah and Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Quest in dual patent infringement actions involving authentication software for large computer networks\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinisar v. \u003cstrong\u003eOplink Communications \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; counsel for Oplink against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit concerning optical transceivers and microcontrollers\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":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Eutermoser","nick_name":"Brian","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Brian","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":1406,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2006-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian is\u0026nbsp;a trial attorney who specializes in patent disputes and other complex litigation in state and federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.\u0026nbsp; He routinely represents clients in high-stakes cases\u0026nbsp;involving injunctive relief and hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian's practice focuses on complex patent litigation and \u003cem\u003einter partes \u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings across a wide variety of technologies, including medical devices, enterprise hardware and software, wireless communications, website development, semiconductors, and LEDs.\u0026nbsp; He has experience in all aspects of patent litigation, including developing and implementing case strategies, managing day-to-day discovery and client communications, motion practice, fact and expert depositions, oral argument, trial preparation, and post-trial and appellate briefing.\u0026nbsp; In addition to patent disputes, Brian has litigated trade secret, employment, and contract cases in\u0026nbsp;state and federal courts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMedline Industries\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e v. C.R. Bard \u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of Illinois) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Medline in multiple district court actions involving urology products and procedures\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Lawrence Communications v. \u003cstrong\u003eMotorola Mobility \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Eastern District of Texas) \u0026ndash; trial counsel for Motorola in a patent case involving speech coders used in cellular communications\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinjan v. \u003cstrong\u003ePalo Alto Networks \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Patent Trial and Appeal Board) \u0026ndash; counsel for Palo Alto Networks in \u003cem\u003einter partes \u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings involving malware detection software\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpen Text \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. Box.com \u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; trial counsel for Open Text in a patent infringement action involving cloud storage systems\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eT3 Media v. \u003cstrong\u003eBBC Worldwide \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(District of Colorado) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for the BBC in a media rights licensing dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHSM Portfolio v. \u003cstrong\u003eQualcomm \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(District of Delaware) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent case involving semiconductor and chipset technology\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuest Software \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. Centrify Corporation \u003c/em\u003e(District of Utah and Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Quest in dual patent infringement actions involving authentication software for large computer networks\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinisar v. \u003cstrong\u003eOplink Communications \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; counsel for Oplink against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit concerning optical transceivers and microcontrollers\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5952}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:14.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:14.000Z","searchable_text":"Eutermoser{{ FIELD }}Medline Industries v. C.R. Bard (Northern District of Illinois) – litigation counsel for Medline in multiple district court actions involving urology products and procedures{{ FIELD }}St. Lawrence Communications v. Motorola Mobility (Eastern District of Texas) – trial counsel for Motorola in a patent case involving speech coders used in cellular communications{{ FIELD }}Finjan v. Palo Alto Networks (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) – counsel for Palo Alto Networks in inter partes review proceedings involving malware detection software{{ FIELD }}Open Text v. Box.com (Northern District of California) – trial counsel for Open Text in a patent infringement action involving cloud storage systems{{ FIELD }}T3 Media v. BBC Worldwide (District of Colorado) – litigation counsel for the BBC in a media rights licensing dispute{{ FIELD }}HSM Portfolio v. Qualcomm (District of Delaware) – litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent case involving semiconductor and chipset technology{{ FIELD }}Quest Software v. Centrify Corporation (District of Utah and Northern District of California) – litigation counsel for Quest in dual patent infringement actions involving authentication software for large computer networks{{ FIELD }}Finisar v. Oplink Communications (Northern District of California) – counsel for Oplink against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit concerning optical transceivers and microcontrollers{{ FIELD }}Brian is a trial attorney who specializes in patent disputes and other complex litigation in state and federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  He routinely represents clients in high-stakes cases involving injunctive relief and hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages. \nBrian's practice focuses on complex patent litigation and inter partes review proceedings across a wide variety of technologies, including medical devices, enterprise hardware and software, wireless communications, website development, semiconductors, and LEDs.  He has experience in all aspects of patent litigation, including developing and implementing case strategies, managing day-to-day discovery and client communications, motion practice, fact and expert depositions, oral argument, trial preparation, and post-trial and appellate briefing.  In addition to patent disputes, Brian has litigated trade secret, employment, and contract cases in state and federal courts.  Partner Washington and Lee University Washington and Lee University School of Law New York University New York University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Colorado New York American Bar Association Federal Circuit Bar Association Medline Industries v. C.R. Bard (Northern District of Illinois) – litigation counsel for Medline in multiple district court actions involving urology products and procedures St. Lawrence Communications v. Motorola Mobility (Eastern District of Texas) – trial counsel for Motorola in a patent case involving speech coders used in cellular communications Finjan v. Palo Alto Networks (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) – counsel for Palo Alto Networks in inter partes review proceedings involving malware detection software Open Text v. Box.com (Northern District of California) – trial counsel for Open Text in a patent infringement action involving cloud storage systems T3 Media v. BBC Worldwide (District of Colorado) – litigation counsel for the BBC in a media rights licensing dispute HSM Portfolio v. Qualcomm (District of Delaware) – litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent case involving semiconductor and chipset technology Quest Software v. Centrify Corporation (District of Utah and Northern District of California) – litigation counsel for Quest in dual patent infringement actions involving authentication software for large computer networks Finisar v. Oplink Communications (Northern District of California) – counsel for Oplink against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit concerning optical transceivers and microcontrollers","searchable_name":"Brian Eutermoser","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443131,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5124,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.\u0026nbsp; He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.\u0026nbsp; The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs. \u0026nbsp;He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.\u0026nbsp; He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.\u0026nbsp; Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.\u0026nbsp; Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client\u0026rsquo;s patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.\u0026nbsp; He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the \u0026ldquo;386\u0026rdquo; trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom speaks frequently on patent issues.\u0026nbsp; He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.\u0026nbsp; He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,\u0026nbsp; as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u003c/em\u003e since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of\u0026nbsp; The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the \u0026ldquo;Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\u0026rdquo; by the Daily Journal.\u0026nbsp; He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEuro Money\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"thomas-friel","email":"tfriel@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 415 990 7997","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.aofs","index":0,"source":"aofs"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Friel","nick_name":"Tom","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Thomas","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2237,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1977-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":[{"title":"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law","detail":"BEST LAWYERS USA"},{"title":"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California","detail":"Daily Journal"},{"title":"Recognized, IP Star ","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Listed, IP Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property ","detail":"Euromoney"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts","detail":"Euromoney"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.\u0026nbsp; He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.\u0026nbsp; The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs. \u0026nbsp;He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.\u0026nbsp; He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.\u0026nbsp; Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.\u0026nbsp; Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client\u0026rsquo;s patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.\u0026nbsp; He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the \u0026ldquo;386\u0026rdquo; trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom speaks frequently on patent issues.\u0026nbsp; He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.\u0026nbsp; He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,\u0026nbsp; as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u003c/em\u003e since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of\u0026nbsp; The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the \u0026ldquo;Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\u0026rdquo; by the Daily Journal.\u0026nbsp; He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEuro Money\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law","detail":"BEST LAWYERS USA"},{"title":"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California","detail":"Daily Journal"},{"title":"Recognized, IP Star ","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Listed, IP Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property ","detail":"Euromoney"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts","detail":"Euromoney"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5702}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-19T20:04:25.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-19T20:04:25.000Z","searchable_text":"Friel{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BEST LAWYERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, IP Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, IP Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney\"}{{ FIELD }}Tom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.  He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.  The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs.  He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\nTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.  He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.  Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies. \nTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.  Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client’s patents.\nTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.  He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the “386” trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\nTom speaks frequently on patent issues.  He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.  He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,  as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked Chambers USA, Legal 500, Managing Intellectual Property since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of  The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the “Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California” by the Daily Journal.  He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by IAM Patent 1000, Super Lawyers, and Euro Money.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice. Partner Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law BEST LAWYERS USA Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California Daily Journal Recognized, IP Star  Managing Intellectual Property Listed, Patent Litigation Legal 500 Listed, IP Litigation Chambers USA Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer IAM Patent 1000 Listed, Patent Litigation Best Lawyers in America Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer Super Lawyers Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property  Euromoney Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts Euromoney University of Michigan-Ann Arbor  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School California American Bar Association Santa Clara County Bar Association International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association The Bar Association of San Francisco","searchable_name":"Thomas J. Friel, Jr. (Tom)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442818,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5741,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate has a wide-ranging practice, focusing primarily on trade secrets issues, employment litigation, complex civil litigation, and securities litigation. She handles all phases of litigation in state and federal courts across various fields, including employment, contract, real estate, and general business disputes. Jeanne also advises clients regarding employment and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate is a go-to partner on trade secrets issues, including all issues surrounding employee mobility, ranging from drafting enforceable employment agreements, to advising clients as to appropriate on-boarding and off-boarding practices, and ultimately to litigating any disputes that may arise from the termination of an employer/employee relationship. In order to litigate trade secrets, non-competes, and other employee mobility claims, lawyers are often called upon to respond quickly to demand letters and to immediately move to draft and/or defend against requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Jeanne, a journalist before law school, excels at this fast-paced practice.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne served as the editor-in-chief of UNC-Chapel Hill\u0026rsquo;s daily newspaper, \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Tar Heel\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeanne-fugate","email":"jfugate@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive\u0026rsquo;s employment agreement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company\u0026rsquo;s employees\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness and Securities Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented health care company in founders\u0026rsquo; dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders\u0026rsquo; TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHandled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women\u0026rsquo;s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily Law\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented client in novel action brought under\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarvin v. Marvin\u003c/em\u003e, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertainment and Intellectual Property\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; marks were entitled only to limited protection\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey\u0026rsquo;s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees and costs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman\u0026rsquo;s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCriminal Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons\u0026mdash;a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi\u0026rsquo;s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cdiv id=\"mySiteMain\" data-name=\"ContentPlaceHolderMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_PageContentSection\" class=\"pageContentSection\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"fixedWidthMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"MSO_ContentTable\" class=\"ms-core-tableNoSpace ms-fillBox\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr id=\"BottomRow\"\u003e\n\u003ctd id=\"BottomCell\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-zone ms-fullWidth\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"MSOZoneCell_WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"s4-wpcell-plain ms-webpartzone-cell ms-webpart-cell-vertical ms-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-chrome ms-webpart-chrome-vertical ms-webpart-chrome-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"ms-WPBody noindex \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8_profileBody\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientsMatters\" class=\"pagePanel\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientMattersText\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"pageFooterSection noindex\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fugate","nick_name":"Jeanne","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Raymond C. Fisher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"2003 - 2004"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","years_held":"2002 - 2003"}],"first_name":"Jeanne","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":1406,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the ","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017"},{"title":"Recommended for Trade Secret","detail":"Legal 500 US 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2018, 2019"},{"title":"Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Law360 2024"},{"title":"Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024"},{"title":"Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate has a wide-ranging practice, focusing primarily on trade secrets issues, employment litigation, complex civil litigation, and securities litigation. She handles all phases of litigation in state and federal courts across various fields, including employment, contract, real estate, and general business disputes. Jeanne also advises clients regarding employment and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate is a go-to partner on trade secrets issues, including all issues surrounding employee mobility, ranging from drafting enforceable employment agreements, to advising clients as to appropriate on-boarding and off-boarding practices, and ultimately to litigating any disputes that may arise from the termination of an employer/employee relationship. In order to litigate trade secrets, non-competes, and other employee mobility claims, lawyers are often called upon to respond quickly to demand letters and to immediately move to draft and/or defend against requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Jeanne, a journalist before law school, excels at this fast-paced practice.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne served as the editor-in-chief of UNC-Chapel Hill\u0026rsquo;s daily newspaper, \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Tar Heel\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive\u0026rsquo;s employment agreement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company\u0026rsquo;s employees\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness and Securities Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented health care company in founders\u0026rsquo; dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders\u0026rsquo; TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHandled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women\u0026rsquo;s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily Law\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented client in novel action brought under\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarvin v. Marvin\u003c/em\u003e, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertainment and Intellectual Property\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; marks were entitled only to limited protection\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey\u0026rsquo;s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees and costs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman\u0026rsquo;s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCriminal Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons\u0026mdash;a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi\u0026rsquo;s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cdiv id=\"mySiteMain\" data-name=\"ContentPlaceHolderMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_PageContentSection\" class=\"pageContentSection\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"fixedWidthMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"MSO_ContentTable\" class=\"ms-core-tableNoSpace ms-fillBox\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr id=\"BottomRow\"\u003e\n\u003ctd id=\"BottomCell\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-zone ms-fullWidth\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"MSOZoneCell_WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"s4-wpcell-plain ms-webpartzone-cell ms-webpart-cell-vertical ms-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-chrome ms-webpart-chrome-vertical ms-webpart-chrome-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"ms-WPBody noindex \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8_profileBody\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientsMatters\" class=\"pagePanel\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientMattersText\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"pageFooterSection noindex\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the ","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017"},{"title":"Recommended for Trade Secret","detail":"Legal 500 US 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2018, 2019"},{"title":"Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Law360 2024"},{"title":"Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024"},{"title":"Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8078}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:08.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Fugate{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Trade Secret\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal 2018, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026amp; Entertainment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\nDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client{{ FIELD }}Defeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client{{ FIELD }}Obtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive’s employment agreement{{ FIELD }}Defeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company’s employees{{ FIELD }}Obtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors{{ FIELD }}Successfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction{{ FIELD }}Defended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement{{ FIELD }}Business and Securities Disputes\nRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing{{ FIELD }}Represented health care company in founders’ dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders’ TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved{{ FIELD }}Represented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage{{ FIELD }}Successfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients{{ FIELD }}Obtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss{{ FIELD }}Handled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme{{ FIELD }}In a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week{{ FIELD }}Employment Matters\nOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women’s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints{{ FIELD }}Represented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne’s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Preserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions{{ FIELD }}Secured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer.{{ FIELD }}Successfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced{{ FIELD }}Represented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident{{ FIELD }}Defended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed{{ FIELD }}Family Law\nRepresented client in novel action brought under Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings{{ FIELD }}Entertainment and Intellectual Property\nObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne’s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs’ marks were entitled only to limited protection{{ FIELD }}Defeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey’s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute{{ FIELD }}Obtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs{{ FIELD }}Achieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro{{ FIELD }}Criminal Matters\nSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons—a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi’s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term{{ FIELD }}\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney’s Office\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n {{ FIELD }}Jeanne Fugate has a wide-ranging practice, focusing primarily on trade secrets issues, employment litigation, complex civil litigation, and securities litigation. She handles all phases of litigation in state and federal courts across various fields, including employment, contract, real estate, and general business disputes. Jeanne also advises clients regarding employment and compliance issues.\nJeanne Fugate is a go-to partner on trade secrets issues, including all issues surrounding employee mobility, ranging from drafting enforceable employment agreements, to advising clients as to appropriate on-boarding and off-boarding practices, and ultimately to litigating any disputes that may arise from the termination of an employer/employee relationship. In order to litigate trade secrets, non-competes, and other employee mobility claims, lawyers are often called upon to respond quickly to demand letters and to immediately move to draft and/or defend against requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Jeanne, a journalist before law school, excels at this fast-paced practice. \nJeanne served as the editor-in-chief of UNC-Chapel Hill’s daily newspaper, The Daily Tar Heel. Partner Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California Daily Journal 2023 Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the  Los Angeles Business Journal 2017 Recommended for Trade Secret Legal 500 US 2023 Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California Daily Journal 2018, 2019 Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026amp; Entertainment Law360 2024 Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024 Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list Los Angeles Business Journal 2023 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina School of Law New York University New York University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 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 New York President, Los Angeles Civil Service Commission Board Member and President-Elect, California ChangeLawyers Board Member and Dinner Committee Chair, Association of Business Trial Lawyers Member, Sedona Conference WG12 Model Defend Trade Secrets Act Jury Instructions Brainstorming Group (committee working to draft model jury instructions to be used in DTSA cases) Member, CJA/CLA Civility in the Legal Profession Task Force LA Board of Directors and Co-Chair Government Relations Committee, Federal Bar Association Judicial Clerk, Hon. Raymond C. Fisher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judicial Clerk, Hon. Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\nDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client Defeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client Obtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive’s employment agreement Defeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company’s employees Obtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors Successfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction Defended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement Business and Securities Disputes\nRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing Represented health care company in founders’ dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders’ TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved Represented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage Successfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients Obtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss Handled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme In a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week Employment Matters\nOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women’s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints Represented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne’s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys’ fees. Preserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions Secured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer. Successfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced Represented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident Defended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed Family Law\nRepresented client in novel action brought under Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings Entertainment and Intellectual Property\nObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne’s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs’ marks were entitled only to limited protection Defeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey’s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute Obtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs Achieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro Criminal Matters\nSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons—a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi’s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney’s Office\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n ","searchable_name":"Jeanne A. Fugate","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},{"id":444346,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5737,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eArwen Johnson is a trial lawyer\u0026nbsp;who delivers results in high-stakes cases and regularly wins dispositive motions.\u0026nbsp; Arwen specializes in intellectual property, employment, and class action disputes for entertainment, tech, and healthcare companies. Arwen\u0026rsquo;s clients rely on her expertise in trade secrets, employee mobility, partnership disputes, copyright infringement and idea theft,\u0026nbsp;defamation and high net worth litigation.\u0026nbsp; They also count on her extensive knowledge of emergency and provisional remedies, the anti-SLAPP statute, class action procedures, and trial motion practice and appeals.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Arwen also serves as the Managing Partner of the firm's Los Angeles office.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArwen's publications and presentations include:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Powerful Women in the Courtroom,\u0026rdquo; Daily Journal\u0026rsquo;s Women Leadership in Law Forum, May 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eEpic Systems Corp. v. Lewis\u003c/em\u003e and Its Aftermath and Impact on Class Action Waivers,\u0026rdquo; Bridgeport Continuing Education, January 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Launching Your Career: Keys to Success in a Law Firm,\u0026rdquo; UCLA Law Women LEAD Summit, February 2017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;Navigating California\u0026rsquo;s Parental Leave Laws,\u0026rdquo; California Minority Counsel Program, June 2018 (with Noah Perez-Silverman)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;California's No Aid Clause and Religious Endorsement: Davies v. County of Los Angeles,\u0026rdquo; California Minority Counsel Program, July 2016 (with Kimberly M. Singer)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;Overpriced Security? A Review of the SEC\u0026rsquo;s Proposed Rulemaking on \u0026lsquo;Pay-to-Play,\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo; American Bar Association\u0026rsquo;s Fourth Annual National Institute on Securities Fraud, October 2009 (with David K. Willingham and Jeffrey H. Rutherford)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"arwen-johnson","email":"arwen.johnson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eWon motion to compel arbitration on behalf of tech client of putative class action alleging misclassification of couriers and raising novel legal theories relates to COVID-19\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon nearly all claims tried to the jury in fraud, interference, and trade secret dispute between tech startup and government contractor\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon bench trial on claims involving an employee\u0026rsquo;s entitlement to Labor Code penalties by securing a nonsuit after the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s opening statement\u0026mdash;including the client\u0026rsquo;s attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, a rare employer win\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in multi-million-dollar partnership dispute. The court\u0026rsquo;s order specifically complimented the \u0026ldquo;excellent briefing,\u0026rdquo; which ultimately led to a $350,000 fee award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment on behalf of the film studio and filmmakers behind the blockbuster film trilogy\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Matrix\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement lawsuit\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a permanent injunction against the County of Los Angeles in federal court, thereby preventing an attempt to include an overtly religious symbol on the County Seal. This case was highlighted as a signature matter by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated wage-and-hour and disability discrimination class action allegations in a twenty-count action brought by a former employee of a film studio client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in a major case brought against a large energy company by a real estate developer alleging $50-100 million in lost sales\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated all claims at the pleading stage in multiple trust and estates litigations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully prosecuted and defended multiple anti-SLAPP motions, at both the trial and appellate levels, resulting in complete victories\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFavorably resolved multiple partnership dissolution actions and employment disputes on behalf of major corporations and small businesses\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"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"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Johnson","nick_name":"Arwen","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Dean D. Pregerson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"2006 - 2007"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"2007 - 2008"}],"first_name":"Arwen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2162,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2006-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"First Amendment Award, ACLU Foundation of Southern California","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Daily Journal, Top 40 Under 40","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Fellow of the Legal Council on Legal Diversity","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Star in Business Litigation","detail":"2013–present"},{"title":"Up-and-Coming 50 – Women Southern California Rising Stars ","detail":"2015–present"},{"title":"Up-and-Coming 100 – Southern California Rising Stars ","detail":"2015–present"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/arwen-johnson-713283119/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":95,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eArwen Johnson is a trial lawyer\u0026nbsp;who delivers results in high-stakes cases and regularly wins dispositive motions.\u0026nbsp; Arwen specializes in intellectual property, employment, and class action disputes for entertainment, tech, and healthcare companies. Arwen\u0026rsquo;s clients rely on her expertise in trade secrets, employee mobility, partnership disputes, copyright infringement and idea theft,\u0026nbsp;defamation and high net worth litigation.\u0026nbsp; They also count on her extensive knowledge of emergency and provisional remedies, the anti-SLAPP statute, class action procedures, and trial motion practice and appeals.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Arwen also serves as the Managing Partner of the firm's Los Angeles office.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArwen's publications and presentations include:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Powerful Women in the Courtroom,\u0026rdquo; Daily Journal\u0026rsquo;s Women Leadership in Law Forum, May 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eEpic Systems Corp. v. Lewis\u003c/em\u003e and Its Aftermath and Impact on Class Action Waivers,\u0026rdquo; Bridgeport Continuing Education, January 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Launching Your Career: Keys to Success in a Law Firm,\u0026rdquo; UCLA Law Women LEAD Summit, February 2017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;Navigating California\u0026rsquo;s Parental Leave Laws,\u0026rdquo; California Minority Counsel Program, June 2018 (with Noah Perez-Silverman)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;California's No Aid Clause and Religious Endorsement: Davies v. County of Los Angeles,\u0026rdquo; California Minority Counsel Program, July 2016 (with Kimberly M. Singer)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor, \u0026ldquo;Overpriced Security? A Review of the SEC\u0026rsquo;s Proposed Rulemaking on \u0026lsquo;Pay-to-Play,\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo; American Bar Association\u0026rsquo;s Fourth Annual National Institute on Securities Fraud, October 2009 (with David K. Willingham and Jeffrey H. Rutherford)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eWon motion to compel arbitration on behalf of tech client of putative class action alleging misclassification of couriers and raising novel legal theories relates to COVID-19\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon nearly all claims tried to the jury in fraud, interference, and trade secret dispute between tech startup and government contractor\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon bench trial on claims involving an employee\u0026rsquo;s entitlement to Labor Code penalties by securing a nonsuit after the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s opening statement\u0026mdash;including the client\u0026rsquo;s attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, a rare employer win\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in multi-million-dollar partnership dispute. The court\u0026rsquo;s order specifically complimented the \u0026ldquo;excellent briefing,\u0026rdquo; which ultimately led to a $350,000 fee award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment on behalf of the film studio and filmmakers behind the blockbuster film trilogy\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Matrix\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement lawsuit\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a permanent injunction against the County of Los Angeles in federal court, thereby preventing an attempt to include an overtly religious symbol on the County Seal. This case was highlighted as a signature matter by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated wage-and-hour and disability discrimination class action allegations in a twenty-count action brought by a former employee of a film studio client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in a major case brought against a large energy company by a real estate developer alleging $50-100 million in lost sales\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated all claims at the pleading stage in multiple trust and estates litigations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully prosecuted and defended multiple anti-SLAPP motions, at both the trial and appellate levels, resulting in complete victories\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFavorably resolved multiple partnership dissolution actions and employment disputes on behalf of major corporations and small businesses\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"First Amendment Award, ACLU Foundation of Southern California","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Daily Journal, Top 40 Under 40","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Fellow of the Legal Council on Legal Diversity","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Star in Business Litigation","detail":"2013–present"},{"title":"Up-and-Coming 50 – Women Southern California Rising Stars ","detail":"2015–present"},{"title":"Up-and-Coming 100 – Southern California Rising Stars ","detail":"2015–present"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8091}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-16T20:31:16.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-16T20:31:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Johnson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"First Amendment Award, ACLU Foundation of Southern California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal, Top 40 Under 40\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow of the Legal Council on Legal Diversity\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Star in Business Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013–present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Up-and-Coming 50 – Women Southern California Rising Stars \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2015–present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Up-and-Coming 100 – Southern California Rising Stars \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2015–present\"}{{ FIELD }}Won motion to compel arbitration on behalf of tech client of putative class action alleging misclassification of couriers and raising novel legal theories relates to COVID-19{{ FIELD }}Won nearly all claims tried to the jury in fraud, interference, and trade secret dispute between tech startup and government contractor{{ FIELD }}Won bench trial on claims involving an employee’s entitlement to Labor Code penalties by securing a nonsuit after the plaintiff’s opening statement—including the client’s attorneys’ fees, a rare employer win{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment in multi-million-dollar partnership dispute. The court’s order specifically complimented the “excellent briefing,” which ultimately led to a $350,000 fee award.{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment on behalf of the film studio and filmmakers behind the blockbuster film trilogy The Matrix in a copyright infringement lawsuit{{ FIELD }}Won a permanent injunction against the County of Los Angeles in federal court, thereby preventing an attempt to include an overtly religious symbol on the County Seal. This case was highlighted as a signature matter by Law360{{ FIELD }}Defeated wage-and-hour and disability discrimination class action allegations in a twenty-count action brought by a former employee of a film studio client{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment in a major case brought against a large energy company by a real estate developer alleging $50-100 million in lost sales{{ FIELD }}Defeated all claims at the pleading stage in multiple trust and estates litigations{{ FIELD }}Successfully prosecuted and defended multiple anti-SLAPP motions, at both the trial and appellate levels, resulting in complete victories{{ FIELD }}Favorably resolved multiple partnership dissolution actions and employment disputes on behalf of major corporations and small businesses{{ FIELD }}Arwen Johnson is a trial lawyer who delivers results in high-stakes cases and regularly wins dispositive motions.  Arwen specializes in intellectual property, employment, and class action disputes for entertainment, tech, and healthcare companies. Arwen’s clients rely on her expertise in trade secrets, employee mobility, partnership disputes, copyright infringement and idea theft, defamation and high net worth litigation.  They also count on her extensive knowledge of emergency and provisional remedies, the anti-SLAPP statute, class action procedures, and trial motion practice and appeals.  Arwen also serves as the Managing Partner of the firm's Los Angeles office. \nArwen's publications and presentations include:\n\nSpeaker, “Powerful Women in the Courtroom,” Daily Journal’s Women Leadership in Law Forum, May 2019\nSpeaker, “Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and Its Aftermath and Impact on Class Action Waivers,” Bridgeport Continuing Education, January 2019\nSpeaker, “Launching Your Career: Keys to Success in a Law Firm,” UCLA Law Women LEAD Summit, February 2017\nAuthor, “Navigating California’s Parental Leave Laws,” California Minority Counsel Program, June 2018 (with Noah Perez-Silverman)\nAuthor, “California's No Aid Clause and Religious Endorsement: Davies v. County of Los Angeles,” California Minority Counsel Program, July 2016 (with Kimberly M. Singer)\nAuthor, “Overpriced Security? A Review of the SEC’s Proposed Rulemaking on ‘Pay-to-Play,’” American Bar Association’s Fourth Annual National Institute on Securities Fraud, October 2009 (with David K. Willingham and Jeffrey H. Rutherford)\n Partner First Amendment Award, ACLU Foundation of Southern California 2017 Daily Journal, Top 40 Under 40 2017 Fellow of the Legal Council on Legal Diversity 2018 Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Star in Business Litigation 2013–present Up-and-Coming 50 – Women Southern California Rising Stars  2015–present Up-and-Coming 100 – Southern California Rising Stars  2015–present Rice University  University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 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 California Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles California JNE Commission ABA Leadership, Judicial Intern Opportunity Program (JIOP), Regional Co-Chair for Los Angeles Delegate, LACBA California Conference of Bar Associations Vice President, Advisory Board of the Western Center on Law and Poverty (2013–2016) California Women Lawyers Law Clerk, Hon. Dean D. Pregerson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Law Clerk, Hon. Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Won motion to compel arbitration on behalf of tech client of putative class action alleging misclassification of couriers and raising novel legal theories relates to COVID-19 Won nearly all claims tried to the jury in fraud, interference, and trade secret dispute between tech startup and government contractor Won bench trial on claims involving an employee’s entitlement to Labor Code penalties by securing a nonsuit after the plaintiff’s opening statement—including the client’s attorneys’ fees, a rare employer win Won summary judgment in multi-million-dollar partnership dispute. The court’s order specifically complimented the “excellent briefing,” which ultimately led to a $350,000 fee award. Won summary judgment on behalf of the film studio and filmmakers behind the blockbuster film trilogy The Matrix in a copyright infringement lawsuit Won a permanent injunction against the County of Los Angeles in federal court, thereby preventing an attempt to include an overtly religious symbol on the County Seal. This case was highlighted as a signature matter by Law360 Defeated wage-and-hour and disability discrimination class action allegations in a twenty-count action brought by a former employee of a film studio client Won summary judgment in a major case brought against a large energy company by a real estate developer alleging $50-100 million in lost sales Defeated all claims at the pleading stage in multiple trust and estates litigations Successfully prosecuted and defended multiple anti-SLAPP motions, at both the trial and appellate levels, resulting in complete victories Favorably resolved multiple partnership dissolution actions and employment disputes on behalf of major corporations and small businesses","searchable_name":"Arwen R. Johnson","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":446711,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5844,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePatrick Lafferty is a Partner on the Intellectual Property team and holds a degree in electrical engineering.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on patent litigation and counseling, including matters related to semiconductors, encryption and security, distributed networks, telecommunications (including cellular standards), software applications, FinTech, the mechanical arts, life sciences (ANDA/aBLA) cases, and standard essential patents.\u0026nbsp; He is also a registered patent attorney at the USPTO.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatrick has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation in the top patent venues in the nation, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, Delaware, and the Northern District of California. Patrick has represented and litigated against some of the largest companies in the world. He has also counseled clients and effectively litigated proceedings at the USPTO (including numerous \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review proceedings) and Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Amtech Systems LLC against Kapsch in competitor vs. competitor patent litigation at the International Trade Commission (Section 337) on RFID technology used in electronic toll collection. Patrick led the technical case for one set of patents, including taking and defending key fact and expert depositions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sanofi in Hatch-Waxman litigation against Merck concerning insulin glargine and mechanical pen injectors. Patrick had primary responsibility for mechanical pen injector patents, including preparing trial testimony and examining one of Sanofi\u0026rsquo;s lead validity experts at trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Apple against Qualcomm in cases concerning cellular baseband chipsets and standard essential patents (SEPs), including \u003cem\u003eFTC v. Qualcomm\u003c/em\u003e, the \u003cem\u003eIn re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation MDL litigation\u003c/em\u003e, the principal \u003cem\u003eApple v. Qualcomm\u003c/em\u003e antitrust/FRAND case, as well as related patent proceedings at the ITC and around the world (e.g., the Korean Fair Trade Commission). Patrick focused on issues concerning FRAND licensing and the baseband chipset industry, conjoint and regression analyses, issues of French law and contract interpretation, standard setting organization IPR policies and consumer behavior/surveys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented software company ROY-G-BIV in patent litigation against ABB, Honeywell, and Siemens on motion control software patents used in process control plants. Managed all aspects of discovery, including taking or defending depositions of three technical witnesses and two technical experts. Patrick led the review of millions of lines of source code, including managing a team of experts for over a year. Patrick also had responsibility for successfully defeating at the summary judgment stage an argument that our clients violated the intellectual property policy of a standard setting organization. Patrick also represented ROY-G-BIV in \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which successfully defended the validity of the motion control patents that were the subject of the co-pending litigation. This was the first case to uphold the validity of all challenged patent claims in an IPR.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"patrick-lafferty","email":"plafferty@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Lafferty","nick_name":"Patrick","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Richard Linn, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","years_held":"2009 - 2009"}],"first_name":"Patrick","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":753,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"high honors, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-lafferty-0a238b28/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePatrick Lafferty is a Partner on the Intellectual Property team and holds a degree in electrical engineering.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on patent litigation and counseling, including matters related to semiconductors, encryption and security, distributed networks, telecommunications (including cellular standards), software applications, FinTech, the mechanical arts, life sciences (ANDA/aBLA) cases, and standard essential patents.\u0026nbsp; He is also a registered patent attorney at the USPTO.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatrick has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation in the top patent venues in the nation, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, Delaware, and the Northern District of California. Patrick has represented and litigated against some of the largest companies in the world. He has also counseled clients and effectively litigated proceedings at the USPTO (including numerous \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review proceedings) and Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Amtech Systems LLC against Kapsch in competitor vs. competitor patent litigation at the International Trade Commission (Section 337) on RFID technology used in electronic toll collection. Patrick led the technical case for one set of patents, including taking and defending key fact and expert depositions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sanofi in Hatch-Waxman litigation against Merck concerning insulin glargine and mechanical pen injectors. Patrick had primary responsibility for mechanical pen injector patents, including preparing trial testimony and examining one of Sanofi\u0026rsquo;s lead validity experts at trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Apple against Qualcomm in cases concerning cellular baseband chipsets and standard essential patents (SEPs), including \u003cem\u003eFTC v. Qualcomm\u003c/em\u003e, the \u003cem\u003eIn re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation MDL litigation\u003c/em\u003e, the principal \u003cem\u003eApple v. Qualcomm\u003c/em\u003e antitrust/FRAND case, as well as related patent proceedings at the ITC and around the world (e.g., the Korean Fair Trade Commission). Patrick focused on issues concerning FRAND licensing and the baseband chipset industry, conjoint and regression analyses, issues of French law and contract interpretation, standard setting organization IPR policies and consumer behavior/surveys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented software company ROY-G-BIV in patent litigation against ABB, Honeywell, and Siemens on motion control software patents used in process control plants. Managed all aspects of discovery, including taking or defending depositions of three technical witnesses and two technical experts. Patrick led the review of millions of lines of source code, including managing a team of experts for over a year. Patrick also had responsibility for successfully defeating at the summary judgment stage an argument that our clients violated the intellectual property policy of a standard setting organization. Patrick also represented ROY-G-BIV in \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which successfully defended the validity of the motion control patents that were the subject of the co-pending litigation. This was the first case to uphold the validity of all challenged patent claims in an IPR.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11656}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-13T16:16:00.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-13T16:16:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Lafferty{{ FIELD }}Patrick Lafferty is a Partner on the Intellectual Property team and holds a degree in electrical engineering.  His practice focuses on patent litigation and counseling, including matters related to semiconductors, encryption and security, distributed networks, telecommunications (including cellular standards), software applications, FinTech, the mechanical arts, life sciences (ANDA/aBLA) cases, and standard essential patents.  He is also a registered patent attorney at the USPTO. \nPatrick has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation in the top patent venues in the nation, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, Delaware, and the Northern District of California. Patrick has represented and litigated against some of the largest companies in the world. He has also counseled clients and effectively litigated proceedings at the USPTO (including numerous inter partes review proceedings) and Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission.\nRepresentative Matters\nRepresented Amtech Systems LLC against Kapsch in competitor vs. competitor patent litigation at the International Trade Commission (Section 337) on RFID technology used in electronic toll collection. Patrick led the technical case for one set of patents, including taking and defending key fact and expert depositions.\nRepresented Sanofi in Hatch-Waxman litigation against Merck concerning insulin glargine and mechanical pen injectors. Patrick had primary responsibility for mechanical pen injector patents, including preparing trial testimony and examining one of Sanofi’s lead validity experts at trial.\nRepresented Apple against Qualcomm in cases concerning cellular baseband chipsets and standard essential patents (SEPs), including FTC v. Qualcomm, the In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation MDL litigation, the principal Apple v. Qualcomm antitrust/FRAND case, as well as related patent proceedings at the ITC and around the world (e.g., the Korean Fair Trade Commission). Patrick focused on issues concerning FRAND licensing and the baseband chipset industry, conjoint and regression analyses, issues of French law and contract interpretation, standard setting organization IPR policies and consumer behavior/surveys.\nRepresented software company ROY-G-BIV in patent litigation against ABB, Honeywell, and Siemens on motion control software patents used in process control plants. Managed all aspects of discovery, including taking or defending depositions of three technical witnesses and two technical experts. Patrick led the review of millions of lines of source code, including managing a team of experts for over a year. Patrick also had responsibility for successfully defeating at the summary judgment stage an argument that our clients violated the intellectual property policy of a standard setting organization. Patrick also represented ROY-G-BIV in inter partes review before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which successfully defended the validity of the motion control patents that were the subject of the co-pending litigation. This was the first case to uphold the validity of all challenged patent claims in an IPR. Partner University of Maryland-College Park  George Washington University George Washington University Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit District of Columbia Virginia Intern, Richard Linn, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","searchable_name":"Patrick M. Lafferty","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":436361,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2118,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Trademark Reporter\u003c/em\u003e, having\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eserved on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie\u0026rsquo;s article, \u0026ldquo;Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody\u0026rdquo; won INTA\u0026rsquo;s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.\u0026nbsp; Katie is the author of PLI\u0026rsquo;s one volume treatise, \u0026ldquo;Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner\u0026rsquo;s Guide.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has been recognized in the 2012\u0026ndash;2016 editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her trademark work.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kathleen-mccarthy","email":"kmccarthy@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eA Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBaldino\u0026rsquo;s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eValerus Field Solutions LP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn Site Energy Co. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMTU Onsite Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSpanx, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFritz Hansen A/S\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc\u003c/strong\u003e. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include:\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).\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":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McCarthy","nick_name":"Katie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kathleen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":485,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Named for Trademark Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023"},{"title":"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York","detail":"World Trademark Review 1000"},{"title":"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathleenekatiemccarthy/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Trademark Reporter\u003c/em\u003e, having\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eserved on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie\u0026rsquo;s article, \u0026ldquo;Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody\u0026rdquo; won INTA\u0026rsquo;s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.\u0026nbsp; Katie is the author of PLI\u0026rsquo;s one volume treatise, \u0026ldquo;Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner\u0026rsquo;s Guide.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has been recognized in the 2012\u0026ndash;2016 editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her trademark work.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eA Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBaldino\u0026rsquo;s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eValerus Field Solutions LP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn Site Energy Co. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMTU Onsite Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSpanx, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFritz Hansen A/S\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc\u003c/strong\u003e. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include:\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Named for Trademark Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023"},{"title":"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York","detail":"World Trademark Review 1000"},{"title":"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4266},{"id":4266}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:50:27.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:50:27.000Z","searchable_text":"McCarthy{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named for Trademark Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"World Trademark Review 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}A Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v. Google Inc. et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).{{ FIELD }}Baldino’s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v. Google Inc. et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).{{ FIELD }}Valerus Field Solutions LP v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).{{ FIELD }}On Site Energy Co. v. MTU Onsite Energy (EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).{{ FIELD }}Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).{{ FIELD }}Fritz Hansen A/S v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include: Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).{{ FIELD }}Katie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.\nDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\nKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\nKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal, The Trademark Reporter, having served on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie’s article, “Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody” won INTA’s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.  Katie is the author of PLI’s one volume treatise, “Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner’s Guide.”\nKatie has been recognized in the 2012–2016 editions of Legal 500 for her trademark work. Partner Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation Legal 500, 2022 Named for Trademark Law Best Lawyers, 2023 Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York Managing Intellectual Property, 2022 Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York World Trademark Review 1000 Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP Managing Intellectual Property, 2020 College of the Holy Cross  Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York New York A Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v. Google Inc. et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision). Baldino’s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v. Google Inc. et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims). Valerus Field Solutions LP v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion). On Site Energy Co. v. MTU Onsite Energy (EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense). Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter). Fritz Hansen A/S v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution). Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include: Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).","searchable_name":"Kathleen E. McCarthy (Katie)","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}]}}