{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"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":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"},{"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 Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"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":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Chair","value":"Chair"}],"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":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":2839},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Atlanta's John Marshall Law School","value":2830},{"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":"Bond University","value":2841},{"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":"Bucerius Law School, Germany","value":2898},{"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":"Chicago-Kent College of Law","value":3050},{"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":"College of Law, Guildford, UK","value":2646},{"name":"College of Law, London, UK","value":2647},{"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":"Delhi University","value":3099},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"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":"Durham University","value":2708},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University","value":2936},{"name":"ELTE University Budapest","value":2969},{"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":3039},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"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 School of Law","value":2259},{"name":"Free University Berlin","value":2903},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"Fudan University","value":2986},{"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":"Guildhall University, London","value":2863},{"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":"Inns of Court School of Law, UK","value":2649},{"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":"Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany","value":2653},{"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":"King Saud University College of Law \u0026 Political Sciences","value":2823},{"name":"King's College London","value":2987},{"name":"King's College, University of London, UK","value":2654},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Leiden University","value":2926},{"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":"Liverpool University, UK","value":2657},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"London School of Economics and Political Science, UK","value":2658},{"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":"Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich","value":3105},{"name":"Lund University","value":3084},{"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":"Monash University, Australia","value":2660},{"name":"Monash University, Australia","value":3047},{"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":2715},{"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":"Oxford University, UK","value":2669},{"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":"Queen's University Faculty of Law","value":2801},{"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":2725},{"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":"Sciences Po Paris","value":2925},{"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 Manchester","value":2845},{"name":"The University of Melbourne","value":2836},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2752},{"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":3168},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá Colombia","value":2677},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Iberoamericana","value":2915},{"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":"Université Catholique de Louvain, Licencie en Droit","value":3213},{"name":"Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium","value":2679},{"name":"Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne","value":2680},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University College London, UK","value":2760},{"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 Augsburg","value":2779},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of Bonn, Germany","value":2682},{"name":"University of Bristol, UK","value":2761},{"name":"University of Buenos Aires, Argentina","value":2683},{"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 Cambridge, UK","value":2684},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Cape Town, South Africa","value":2854},{"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 Cologne, Germany","value":2885},{"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 Deusto, Spain","value":2685},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of East London","value":2963},{"name":"University of Exeter, UK","value":2770},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3112},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Hamburg, Germany","value":2688},{"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 at Chicago School of Law","value":2202},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kent at Canterbury, UK","value":2690},{"name":"University of Kent","value":2849},{"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 Law","value":2954},{"name":"University of Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Lima","value":2859},{"name":"University of London","value":2692},{"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":2739},{"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 Michigan Law School","value":3064},{"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 New South Wales","value":2871},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Nottingham, England","value":2881},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Otago, New Zealand","value":2694},{"name":"University of Paris II, Pantheon-Assas, France","value":2695},{"name":"University of Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne","value":3190},{"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 Sheffield","value":2805},{"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 Sydney, Australia","value":2700},{"name":"University of Tasmania","value":2835},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Tokyo","value":3153},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Turku","value":3083},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Warwick, UK","value":2771},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Western Australia","value":2949},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2755},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wollongong, Australia","value":2873},{"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":"University Toulouse Capitol","value":3109},{"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":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":null,"extra_filter_id":"1240","extra_filter_type":"smart_tag","q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"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":448935,"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":"2026-05-28T22:11:00.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:11:00.000Z","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":447984,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7311,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Ferguson is recognized among the leading patent lawyers in the United States. He has 35 years of experience representing Fortune 100 innovator companies before all of the major patent law venues\u0026mdash;the ITC, district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB\u0026mdash;in high-stakes IP disputes involving an array of technologies. A leading publication described him as a \u0026ldquo;master technician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian represents clients in all phases of patent infringement and validity disputes before U.S. district courts, Section 337 investigations before the ITC, and adversarial matters before the PTAB, which includes successfully representing clients in nearly 150\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings. He also has substantial experience litigating patent-related appellate proceedings, including dozens of appeals before the Federal Circuit, where he has argued over 20 times. Additionally, Brian has a broad range of first-chair trial and pre-trial experience in both U.S. district courts and at the ITC. In addition to his patent work, Brian has experience handling other intellectual property disputes, including trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigations. Among his pro bono activities, he has assisted inventors with preparing and filing patent and trademark applications. In 2024, Brian was named Chair of The Sedona Conference\u0026rsquo;s Working Group 10 on \u0026ldquo;Best Practices in Patent Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian has a degree in electrical engineering and is regularly called upon to litigate cases involving sophisticated technologies, including analog and digital integrated circuit designs, computer source code and software design, wearable fitness technology, semiconductor processes, medical technology such as heart valve and annuloplasty devices, injection devices, magnetic image resonance technology, airplane engine design, internet technology, the Internet of Things (IOT), telecommunications hardware and software, digital printing technology, digital cameras, predictive text, and speech recognition technology. He also has handled numerous matters in the chemical space, including batteries and herbicides.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is regularly recognized by international business and industry publications as a leader in patent law. Since 2013, he has been a recommended lawyer nationwide by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e, including in the areas of patent litigation and ITC proceedings and recognized as a \u0026ldquo;Patent Star\u0026rdquo; in Washington, D.C. by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u0026rsquo;s IP Stars.\u003c/em\u003e Since 2012, he has been named among the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Patent Practitioners by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, which recently stated that Brian\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;niche lies in cases involving sophisticated technologies, as he leverages his engineering background to offer tailored insight.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has also called him a \u0026ldquo;veteran enforcer and protector for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s major technology companies,\u0026rdquo; and noted that he is a \u0026ldquo;master tactician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo; In 2012, he was recognized as a \u0026ldquo;BTI Client Service All-Star\u0026rdquo; by BTI Consulting Group. He also has been repeatedly recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is a respected thought leader in the technology sector and in academia. For several years, he taught a course on patent litigation as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law. He also regularly authors articles on patent litigation and technology topics, including the \u0026ldquo;Discovery and Privilege\u0026rdquo; chapter in the book\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePatent Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(PLI Press).\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"brian-ferguson","email":"bferguson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eCore Scientific\u003c/strong\u003e in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading U.S. home goods supplier\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel in numerous \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e and post-grant review proceedings for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading oil and gas exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor\u0026rsquo;s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s top technology companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board\u0026rsquo;s invalidity finding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003einnovator medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in PTAB\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading marine technology provider\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to an \u003cstrong\u003einternational technology conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDozens of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of software systems for healthcare providers\u003c/strong\u003e in multi-front district court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading innovator sports equipment company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of nicotine delivery products\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003epioneering\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003esemiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003espeech recognition technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ferguson","nick_name":"Brian","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Brian","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2118,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1991-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026"},{"title":"“Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings”","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal)","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Patents","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2025"},{"title":"Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025"},{"title":"“Patent Star” in Washington, DC","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-e-ferguson/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Ferguson is recognized among the leading patent lawyers in the United States. He has 35 years of experience representing Fortune 100 innovator companies before all of the major patent law venues\u0026mdash;the ITC, district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB\u0026mdash;in high-stakes IP disputes involving an array of technologies. A leading publication described him as a \u0026ldquo;master technician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian represents clients in all phases of patent infringement and validity disputes before U.S. district courts, Section 337 investigations before the ITC, and adversarial matters before the PTAB, which includes successfully representing clients in nearly 150\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings. He also has substantial experience litigating patent-related appellate proceedings, including dozens of appeals before the Federal Circuit, where he has argued over 20 times. Additionally, Brian has a broad range of first-chair trial and pre-trial experience in both U.S. district courts and at the ITC. In addition to his patent work, Brian has experience handling other intellectual property disputes, including trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigations. Among his pro bono activities, he has assisted inventors with preparing and filing patent and trademark applications. In 2024, Brian was named Chair of The Sedona Conference\u0026rsquo;s Working Group 10 on \u0026ldquo;Best Practices in Patent Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian has a degree in electrical engineering and is regularly called upon to litigate cases involving sophisticated technologies, including analog and digital integrated circuit designs, computer source code and software design, wearable fitness technology, semiconductor processes, medical technology such as heart valve and annuloplasty devices, injection devices, magnetic image resonance technology, airplane engine design, internet technology, the Internet of Things (IOT), telecommunications hardware and software, digital printing technology, digital cameras, predictive text, and speech recognition technology. He also has handled numerous matters in the chemical space, including batteries and herbicides.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is regularly recognized by international business and industry publications as a leader in patent law. Since 2013, he has been a recommended lawyer nationwide by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e, including in the areas of patent litigation and ITC proceedings and recognized as a \u0026ldquo;Patent Star\u0026rdquo; in Washington, D.C. by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u0026rsquo;s IP Stars.\u003c/em\u003e Since 2012, he has been named among the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Patent Practitioners by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, which recently stated that Brian\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;niche lies in cases involving sophisticated technologies, as he leverages his engineering background to offer tailored insight.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has also called him a \u0026ldquo;veteran enforcer and protector for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s major technology companies,\u0026rdquo; and noted that he is a \u0026ldquo;master tactician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo; In 2012, he was recognized as a \u0026ldquo;BTI Client Service All-Star\u0026rdquo; by BTI Consulting Group. He also has been repeatedly recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is a respected thought leader in the technology sector and in academia. For several years, he taught a course on patent litigation as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law. He also regularly authors articles on patent litigation and technology topics, including the \u0026ldquo;Discovery and Privilege\u0026rdquo; chapter in the book\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePatent Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(PLI Press).\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eCore Scientific\u003c/strong\u003e in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading U.S. home goods supplier\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel in numerous \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e and post-grant review proceedings for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading oil and gas exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor\u0026rsquo;s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s top technology companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board\u0026rsquo;s invalidity finding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003einnovator medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in PTAB\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading marine technology provider\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to an \u003cstrong\u003einternational technology conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDozens of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of software systems for healthcare providers\u003c/strong\u003e in multi-front district court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading innovator sports equipment company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of nicotine delivery products\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003epioneering\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003esemiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003espeech recognition technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026"},{"title":"“Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings”","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal)","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Patents","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2025"},{"title":"Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025"},{"title":"“Patent Star” in Washington, DC","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13350}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-01T19:59:13.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-01T19:59:13.000Z","searchable_text":"Ferguson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Patexia, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Patents\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WIPR Leaders, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Patent Star” in Washington, DC\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to Core Scientific in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to a leading U.S. home goods supplier in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics in a patent case against a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading medical device company in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel in numerous inter partes and post-grant review proceedings for a leading oil and gas exploration company. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor’s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to one of the world’s top technology companies in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\nDistrict court litigation, inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board’s invalidity finding.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\nDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\nDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\nDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\nA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\nMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology.{{ FIELD }}Defending a leading international insurance company in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading manufacturing company in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading chemical company in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology.{{ FIELD }}Representing an innovator medical device company in PTAB inter partesreview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading marine technology provider in district court and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to an international technology conglomerate and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\nDozens of inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\nDistrict court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\nDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading provider of software systems for healthcare providers in multi-front district court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading innovator sports equipment company in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading provider of nicotine delivery products in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for a pioneering semiconductor company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for a leading international insurance company and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for a speech recognition technology company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.{{ FIELD }}Brian Ferguson is recognized among the leading patent lawyers in the United States. He has 35 years of experience representing Fortune 100 innovator companies before all of the major patent law venues—the ITC, district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB—in high-stakes IP disputes involving an array of technologies. A leading publication described him as a “master technician” who “calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.”\nBrian represents clients in all phases of patent infringement and validity disputes before U.S. district courts, Section 337 investigations before the ITC, and adversarial matters before the PTAB, which includes successfully representing clients in nearly 150 inter partes review proceedings. He also has substantial experience litigating patent-related appellate proceedings, including dozens of appeals before the Federal Circuit, where he has argued over 20 times. Additionally, Brian has a broad range of first-chair trial and pre-trial experience in both U.S. district courts and at the ITC. In addition to his patent work, Brian has experience handling other intellectual property disputes, including trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigations. Among his pro bono activities, he has assisted inventors with preparing and filing patent and trademark applications. In 2024, Brian was named Chair of The Sedona Conference’s Working Group 10 on “Best Practices in Patent Litigation.”\nBrian has a degree in electrical engineering and is regularly called upon to litigate cases involving sophisticated technologies, including analog and digital integrated circuit designs, computer source code and software design, wearable fitness technology, semiconductor processes, medical technology such as heart valve and annuloplasty devices, injection devices, magnetic image resonance technology, airplane engine design, internet technology, the Internet of Things (IOT), telecommunications hardware and software, digital printing technology, digital cameras, predictive text, and speech recognition technology. He also has handled numerous matters in the chemical space, including batteries and herbicides.\nBrian is regularly recognized by international business and industry publications as a leader in patent law. Since 2013, he has been a recommended lawyer nationwide by The Legal 500 US, including in the areas of patent litigation and ITC proceedings and recognized as a “Patent Star” in Washington, D.C. by Managing Intellectual Property’s IP Stars. Since 2012, he has been named among the World’s Leading Patent Practitioners by the IAM Patent 1000, which recently stated that Brian’s “niche lies in cases involving sophisticated technologies, as he leverages his engineering background to offer tailored insight.” IAM has also called him a “veteran enforcer and protector for some of the world’s major technology companies,” and noted that he is a “master tactician” who “calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.” In 2012, he was recognized as a “BTI Client Service All-Star” by BTI Consulting Group. He also has been repeatedly recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® and Super Lawyers.\nBrian is a respected thought leader in the technology sector and in academia. For several years, he taught a course on patent litigation as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law. He also regularly authors articles on patent litigation and technology topics, including the “Discovery and Privilege” chapter in the book Patent Litigation (PLI Press). Partner Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026 “Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings” Patexia, 2024–2025 “Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023 “Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal) The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024 “500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent Lawdragon, 2022–2026 Recognized for Patents WIPR Leaders, 2025 Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025 “Patent Star” in Washington, DC Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025 Union College  Union College Albany Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office District of Columbia New York Member, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association Chair of Working Group 10 for “Best Practices in Patent Litigation”, The Sedona Conference, 2024-present Member, PTAB Bar Association Former member, Board of Directors of Give an Hour, a non-profit organization devoted to providing mental health services to U.S. veterans and their families Serving as lead counsel to Core Scientific in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain. Serving as co-lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips. Serving as lead counsel to a leading U.S. home goods supplier in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products. Serving as lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD. Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics in a patent case against a competitor. Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading medical device company in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial. Serving as lead counsel in numerous inter partes and post-grant review proceedings for a leading oil and gas exploration company. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor’s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter. Serving as lead counsel to one of the world’s top technology companies in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\nDistrict court litigation, inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board’s invalidity finding.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\nDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\nDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\nDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\nA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\nMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology. Defending a leading international insurance company in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion. Representing a leading manufacturing company in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles. Representing a leading chemical company in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology. Representing an innovator medical device company in PTAB inter partesreview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology. Representing a leading marine technology provider in district court and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating. Serving as lead counsel to an international technology conglomerate and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\nDozens of inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\nDistrict court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\nDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request. Representing a leading provider of software systems for healthcare providers in multi-front district court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology. Representing a leading innovator sports equipment company in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications. Representing a leading provider of nicotine delivery products in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products. Served as lead counsel for a pioneering semiconductor company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology. Served as lead counsel for a leading international insurance company and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology. Served as lead counsel for a speech recognition technology company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.","searchable_name":"Brian E. Ferguson","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443131,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5124,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.\u0026nbsp; He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.\u0026nbsp; The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs. \u0026nbsp;He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.\u0026nbsp; He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.\u0026nbsp; Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.\u0026nbsp; Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client\u0026rsquo;s patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.\u0026nbsp; He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the \u0026ldquo;386\u0026rdquo; trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom speaks frequently on patent issues.\u0026nbsp; He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.\u0026nbsp; He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,\u0026nbsp; as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u003c/em\u003e since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of\u0026nbsp; The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the \u0026ldquo;Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\u0026rdquo; by the Daily Journal.\u0026nbsp; He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEuro Money\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"thomas-friel","email":"tfriel@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 415 990 7997","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.aofs","index":0,"source":"aofs"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Friel","nick_name":"Tom","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Thomas","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2237,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1977-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":[{"title":"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law","detail":"BEST LAWYERS USA"},{"title":"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California","detail":"Daily Journal"},{"title":"Recognized, IP Star ","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Listed, IP Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property ","detail":"Euromoney"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts","detail":"Euromoney"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.\u0026nbsp; He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.\u0026nbsp; The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs. \u0026nbsp;He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.\u0026nbsp; He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.\u0026nbsp; Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.\u0026nbsp; Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client\u0026rsquo;s patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.\u0026nbsp; He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the \u0026ldquo;386\u0026rdquo; trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom speaks frequently on patent issues.\u0026nbsp; He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.\u0026nbsp; He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,\u0026nbsp; as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u003c/em\u003e since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of\u0026nbsp; The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the \u0026ldquo;Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\u0026rdquo; by the Daily Journal.\u0026nbsp; He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEuro Money\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law","detail":"BEST LAWYERS USA"},{"title":"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California","detail":"Daily Journal"},{"title":"Recognized, IP Star ","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Listed, IP Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property ","detail":"Euromoney"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts","detail":"Euromoney"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5702}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-19T20:04:25.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-19T20:04:25.000Z","searchable_text":"Friel{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BEST LAWYERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, IP Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, IP Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney\"}{{ FIELD }}Tom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.  He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.  The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs.  He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\nTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.  He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.  Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies. \nTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.  Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client’s patents.\nTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.  He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the “386” trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\nTom speaks frequently on patent issues.  He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.  He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,  as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked Chambers USA, Legal 500, Managing Intellectual Property since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of  The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the “Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California” by the Daily Journal.  He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by IAM Patent 1000, Super Lawyers, and Euro Money.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice. Partner Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law BEST LAWYERS USA Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California Daily Journal Recognized, IP Star  Managing Intellectual Property Listed, Patent Litigation Legal 500 Listed, IP Litigation Chambers USA Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer IAM Patent 1000 Listed, Patent Litigation Best Lawyers in America Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer Super Lawyers Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property  Euromoney Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts Euromoney University of Michigan-Ann Arbor  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School California American Bar Association Santa Clara County Bar Association International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association The Bar Association of San Francisco","searchable_name":"Thomas J. Friel, Jr. (Tom)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442846,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5950,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Hill handles litigation for innovative companies, with an emphasis on cross-border technology disputes.\u0026nbsp; By focusing on clients\u0026rsquo; key objectives, Brian brings a strategic approach to resolving unfair competition and intellectual property cases.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is a technology litigator and partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's intellectual property group. He has achieved outstanding results in cases involving patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and counterfeit goods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian focuses a significant portion of his practice on unfair import investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission.\u0026nbsp; Brian has represented Complainants and Respondents in all phases of Section 337 disputes, from conception through enforcement proceedings and before U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Brian has been recognized as a \u0026ldquo;Next Generation Partner\u0026rdquo; by Legal 500 and is a regular speaker on issues involving Section 337.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor example, Brian has helped clients obtain general exclusion orders on three separate occasions and regularly helps clients defeat exclusion orders sought by others.\u0026nbsp;In one instance, he helped a leading pharmaceutical company devise a strategy for curbing imports of counterfeit drugs. In district court, Brian argued and successfully avoided transfer of a consolidated group of patent cases, resulting in favorable settlements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian has a background in physics and routinely handles cases involving complex technology, including telecommunications, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.\u0026nbsp; Brian was previously a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's market leading International Trade group.\u0026nbsp; Before joining the firm, Brian was a patent examiner with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He was also an attorney at the ITC.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"brian-hill","email":"bhill@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Smart Thermostat Hubs, Systems Containing the Same, and Components of the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1339 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for iApartments in competitor case involving smart thermostats, resulting in successful defense and withdrawal of the Complaint\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCausam Smart Thermostats, Load Control Switches and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1277 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Representing Causam Enterprises, Inc. in actions related to demand response technology\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Tunable Lenses and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1282 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Holochip against Swiss competitor in case involving liquid lens technology, resulting in early favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Networking Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1275 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent F5 Networks, Inc. in case against Proven Networks involving computer networking technology, resulting in early favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSilicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules with Nanostructures, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1271 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Advanced Silicon Group in case against manufacturers of solar panels in China related to silicon nanowire technology\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRadio Frequency Identification (\"RFID\") Products, Components Thereof, Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1234 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Amtech Systems, LLC in case against competitor involving RFID technology, resulting in favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Electronic Devices, Including Computers, Tablet Computers, and Components and Modules Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1208 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Nokia in case involving H.264 video compression standard, resulting in favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1200 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Universal Electronics, Inc. against Roku, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a limited exclusion order\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Light-Emitting Diode Products, Systems, and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1163/1164/1168 \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent Signify in trifurcated LED patent infringement case brought by Lighting Science Group Corporation, resulting in a finding of no violation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Luxury Vinyl Tile and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1155 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Mohawk Industries in case against infringing flooring tiles from China, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a general exclusion order\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthanol Boosting Systems, LLC et al v. Ford Motor Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(DDE) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Defendant Ford Motor Company in multi-forum dispute over Ford EcoBoost engine\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTaurine (2-Aminoethanesulfonic Acid), Methods of Production and Processes for Making the Same, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1146 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent Fuchi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. in case involving successful request for 100-day proceeding on Domestic Industry, resulting in withdrawal of the complaint\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Programmable Logic Controller (PLCs), Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1105 (ITC) \u0026ndash; Counsel for Respondent Rockwell Automation, Inc. in case involving antitrust allegations under the Sherman Act, resulting in successful defense and withdrawal of the Complaint\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Subsea Telecommunicaton Systems and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1098 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent Nokia in case brought by Xtera, Inc. resulting in a finding of no violation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Industrial Automation Systems and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1074 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Rockwell Automation, Inc. in case involving grey market goods, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a general exclusion order\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1042 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent Ford Motor Company in case against Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eK2M, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. OrthoPediatrics Corp. et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(DDE) \u0026mdash; Counsel for K2M, Inc. (acquired by Stryker in 2018) in trademark case related to competing \u0026ldquo;JIMINY\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;CRICKET\u0026rdquo; products, resulting in favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1038/1039 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Nokia Technologies Oy in bifurcated patent cases, resulting in favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1002 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent Jiangsu Shagang International Trade Co., Ltd. in case involving antitrust and unfair tariff evasion, resulting in successful defense and dismissal of Complaint\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutomated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-972/989 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Diebold Nixdorf in offensive and defensive cases against competitor Nautilus Hyosung\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDiebold, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Content Extraction and Transmission LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(DNJ) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Diebold in declaratory judgment action involving tortious interference and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (\"RICO\") Act, resulting in finding of patent invalidity\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3189}]},"expertise":[{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":579,"guid":"579.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Hill","nick_name":"Brian","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Brian","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2224,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2012-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Brian is a partner in King \u0026 Spalding’s international trade group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Hill handles litigation for innovative companies, with an emphasis on cross-border technology disputes.\u0026nbsp; By focusing on clients\u0026rsquo; key objectives, Brian brings a strategic approach to resolving unfair competition and intellectual property cases.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is a technology litigator and partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's intellectual property group. He has achieved outstanding results in cases involving patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and counterfeit goods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian focuses a significant portion of his practice on unfair import investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission.\u0026nbsp; Brian has represented Complainants and Respondents in all phases of Section 337 disputes, from conception through enforcement proceedings and before U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Brian has been recognized as a \u0026ldquo;Next Generation Partner\u0026rdquo; by Legal 500 and is a regular speaker on issues involving Section 337.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor example, Brian has helped clients obtain general exclusion orders on three separate occasions and regularly helps clients defeat exclusion orders sought by others.\u0026nbsp;In one instance, he helped a leading pharmaceutical company devise a strategy for curbing imports of counterfeit drugs. In district court, Brian argued and successfully avoided transfer of a consolidated group of patent cases, resulting in favorable settlements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian has a background in physics and routinely handles cases involving complex technology, including telecommunications, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.\u0026nbsp; Brian was previously a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's market leading International Trade group.\u0026nbsp; Before joining the firm, Brian was a patent examiner with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He was also an attorney at the ITC.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Smart Thermostat Hubs, Systems Containing the Same, and Components of the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1339 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for iApartments in competitor case involving smart thermostats, resulting in successful defense and withdrawal of the Complaint\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCausam Smart Thermostats, Load Control Switches and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1277 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Representing Causam Enterprises, Inc. in actions related to demand response technology\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Tunable Lenses and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1282 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Holochip against Swiss competitor in case involving liquid lens technology, resulting in early favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Networking Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1275 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent F5 Networks, Inc. in case against Proven Networks involving computer networking technology, resulting in early favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSilicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules with Nanostructures, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1271 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Advanced Silicon Group in case against manufacturers of solar panels in China related to silicon nanowire technology\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRadio Frequency Identification (\"RFID\") Products, Components Thereof, Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1234 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Amtech Systems, LLC in case against competitor involving RFID technology, resulting in favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Electronic Devices, Including Computers, Tablet Computers, and Components and Modules Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1208 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Nokia in case involving H.264 video compression standard, resulting in favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1200 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Universal Electronics, Inc. against Roku, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a limited exclusion order\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Light-Emitting Diode Products, Systems, and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1163/1164/1168 \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent Signify in trifurcated LED patent infringement case brought by Lighting Science Group Corporation, resulting in a finding of no violation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Luxury Vinyl Tile and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1155 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Mohawk Industries in case against infringing flooring tiles from China, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a general exclusion order\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthanol Boosting Systems, LLC et al v. Ford Motor Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(DDE) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Defendant Ford Motor Company in multi-forum dispute over Ford EcoBoost engine\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTaurine (2-Aminoethanesulfonic Acid), Methods of Production and Processes for Making the Same, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1146 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent Fuchi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. in case involving successful request for 100-day proceeding on Domestic Industry, resulting in withdrawal of the complaint\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Programmable Logic Controller (PLCs), Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1105 (ITC) \u0026ndash; Counsel for Respondent Rockwell Automation, Inc. in case involving antitrust allegations under the Sherman Act, resulting in successful defense and withdrawal of the Complaint\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Subsea Telecommunicaton Systems and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1098 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent Nokia in case brought by Xtera, Inc. resulting in a finding of no violation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Industrial Automation Systems and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1074 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Rockwell Automation, Inc. in case involving grey market goods, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a general exclusion order\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1042 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent Ford Motor Company in case against Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eK2M, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. OrthoPediatrics Corp. et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(DDE) \u0026mdash; Counsel for K2M, Inc. (acquired by Stryker in 2018) in trademark case related to competing \u0026ldquo;JIMINY\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;CRICKET\u0026rdquo; products, resulting in favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1038/1039 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Complainant Nokia Technologies Oy in bifurcated patent cases, resulting in favorable settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-1002 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Respondent Jiangsu Shagang International Trade Co., Ltd. in case involving antitrust and unfair tariff evasion, resulting in successful defense and dismissal of Complaint\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutomated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e, 337-TA-972/989 (ITC) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Diebold Nixdorf in offensive and defensive cases against competitor Nautilus Hyosung\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDiebold, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Content Extraction and Transmission LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(DNJ) \u0026mdash; Counsel for Diebold in declaratory judgment action involving tortious interference and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (\"RICO\") Act, resulting in finding of patent invalidity\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8877}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:38.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:38.000Z","searchable_text":"Hill{{ FIELD }}Certain Smart Thermostat Hubs, Systems Containing the Same, and Components of the Same, 337-TA-1339 (ITC) — Counsel for iApartments in competitor case involving smart thermostats, resulting in successful defense and withdrawal of the Complaint{{ FIELD }}Causam Smart Thermostats, Load Control Switches and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1277 (ITC) — Representing Causam Enterprises, Inc. in actions related to demand response technology{{ FIELD }}Certain Tunable Lenses and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1282 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Holochip against Swiss competitor in case involving liquid lens technology, resulting in early favorable settlement{{ FIELD }}Certain Networking Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1275 (ITC) — Counsel for Respondent F5 Networks, Inc. in case against Proven Networks involving computer networking technology, resulting in early favorable settlement{{ FIELD }}Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules with Nanostructures, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1271 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Advanced Silicon Group in case against manufacturers of solar panels in China related to silicon nanowire technology{{ FIELD }}Radio Frequency Identification (\"RFID\") Products, Components Thereof, Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1234 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Amtech Systems, LLC in case against competitor involving RFID technology, resulting in favorable settlement{{ FIELD }}Certain Electronic Devices, Including Computers, Tablet Computers, and Components and Modules Thereof, 337-TA-1208 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Nokia in case involving H.264 video compression standard, resulting in favorable settlement{{ FIELD }}Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1200 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Universal Electronics, Inc. against Roku, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a limited exclusion order{{ FIELD }}Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products, Systems, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1163/1164/1168 — Counsel for Respondent Signify in trifurcated LED patent infringement case brought by Lighting Science Group Corporation, resulting in a finding of no violation{{ FIELD }}Certain Luxury Vinyl Tile and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1155 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Mohawk Industries in case against infringing flooring tiles from China, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a general exclusion order{{ FIELD }}Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC et al v. Ford Motor Company (DDE) — Counsel for Defendant Ford Motor Company in multi-forum dispute over Ford EcoBoost engine{{ FIELD }}Taurine (2-Aminoethanesulfonic Acid), Methods of Production and Processes for Making the Same, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1146 (ITC) — Counsel for Respondent Fuchi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. in case involving successful request for 100-day proceeding on Domestic Industry, resulting in withdrawal of the complaint{{ FIELD }}Certain Programmable Logic Controller (PLCs), Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-1105 (ITC) – Counsel for Respondent Rockwell Automation, Inc. in case involving antitrust allegations under the Sherman Act, resulting in successful defense and withdrawal of the Complaint{{ FIELD }}Certain Subsea Telecommunicaton Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1098 (ITC) — Counsel for Respondent Nokia in case brought by Xtera, Inc. resulting in a finding of no violation{{ FIELD }}Certain Industrial Automation Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1074 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Rockwell Automation, Inc. in case involving grey market goods, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a general exclusion order{{ FIELD }}Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1042 (ITC) — Counsel for Respondent Ford Motor Company in case against Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc.{{ FIELD }}K2M, Inc. v. OrthoPediatrics Corp. et al. (DDE) — Counsel for K2M, Inc. (acquired by Stryker in 2018) in trademark case related to competing “JIMINY” and “CRICKET” products, resulting in favorable settlement{{ FIELD }}Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1038/1039 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Nokia Technologies Oy in bifurcated patent cases, resulting in favorable settlement{{ FIELD }}Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, 337-TA-1002 (ITC) — Counsel for Respondent Jiangsu Shagang International Trade Co., Ltd. in case involving antitrust and unfair tariff evasion, resulting in successful defense and dismissal of Complaint{{ FIELD }}Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-972/989 (ITC) — Counsel for Diebold Nixdorf in offensive and defensive cases against competitor Nautilus Hyosung{{ FIELD }}Diebold, Inc. v. Content Extraction and Transmission LLC (DNJ) — Counsel for Diebold in declaratory judgment action involving tortious interference and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (\"RICO\") Act, resulting in finding of patent invalidity{{ FIELD }}Brian Hill handles litigation for innovative companies, with an emphasis on cross-border technology disputes.  By focusing on clients’ key objectives, Brian brings a strategic approach to resolving unfair competition and intellectual property cases. \nBrian is a technology litigator and partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's intellectual property group. He has achieved outstanding results in cases involving patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and counterfeit goods.\nBrian focuses a significant portion of his practice on unfair import investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission.  Brian has represented Complainants and Respondents in all phases of Section 337 disputes, from conception through enforcement proceedings and before U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Brian has been recognized as a “Next Generation Partner” by Legal 500 and is a regular speaker on issues involving Section 337.\nFor example, Brian has helped clients obtain general exclusion orders on three separate occasions and regularly helps clients defeat exclusion orders sought by others. In one instance, he helped a leading pharmaceutical company devise a strategy for curbing imports of counterfeit drugs. In district court, Brian argued and successfully avoided transfer of a consolidated group of patent cases, resulting in favorable settlements.\nBrian has a background in physics and routinely handles cases involving complex technology, including telecommunications, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.  Brian was previously a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's market leading International Trade group.  Before joining the firm, Brian was a patent examiner with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He was also an attorney at the ITC. Brian Hill lawyer Partner University of Delaware  University of Maryland-Baltimore University of Maryland School of Law Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey District of Columbia New Jersey New York International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association Certain Smart Thermostat Hubs, Systems Containing the Same, and Components of the Same, 337-TA-1339 (ITC) — Counsel for iApartments in competitor case involving smart thermostats, resulting in successful defense and withdrawal of the Complaint Causam Smart Thermostats, Load Control Switches and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1277 (ITC) — Representing Causam Enterprises, Inc. in actions related to demand response technology Certain Tunable Lenses and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1282 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Holochip against Swiss competitor in case involving liquid lens technology, resulting in early favorable settlement Certain Networking Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1275 (ITC) — Counsel for Respondent F5 Networks, Inc. in case against Proven Networks involving computer networking technology, resulting in early favorable settlement Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules with Nanostructures, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1271 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Advanced Silicon Group in case against manufacturers of solar panels in China related to silicon nanowire technology Radio Frequency Identification (\"RFID\") Products, Components Thereof, Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1234 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Amtech Systems, LLC in case against competitor involving RFID technology, resulting in favorable settlement Certain Electronic Devices, Including Computers, Tablet Computers, and Components and Modules Thereof, 337-TA-1208 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Nokia in case involving H.264 video compression standard, resulting in favorable settlement Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1200 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Universal Electronics, Inc. against Roku, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a limited exclusion order Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products, Systems, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1163/1164/1168 — Counsel for Respondent Signify in trifurcated LED patent infringement case brought by Lighting Science Group Corporation, resulting in a finding of no violation Certain Luxury Vinyl Tile and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1155 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Mohawk Industries in case against infringing flooring tiles from China, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a general exclusion order Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC et al v. Ford Motor Company (DDE) — Counsel for Defendant Ford Motor Company in multi-forum dispute over Ford EcoBoost engine Taurine (2-Aminoethanesulfonic Acid), Methods of Production and Processes for Making the Same, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1146 (ITC) — Counsel for Respondent Fuchi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. in case involving successful request for 100-day proceeding on Domestic Industry, resulting in withdrawal of the complaint Certain Programmable Logic Controller (PLCs), Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-1105 (ITC) – Counsel for Respondent Rockwell Automation, Inc. in case involving antitrust allegations under the Sherman Act, resulting in successful defense and withdrawal of the Complaint Certain Subsea Telecommunicaton Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1098 (ITC) — Counsel for Respondent Nokia in case brought by Xtera, Inc. resulting in a finding of no violation Certain Industrial Automation Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1074 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Rockwell Automation, Inc. in case involving grey market goods, resulting in a finding of violation and entry of a general exclusion order Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1042 (ITC) — Counsel for Respondent Ford Motor Company in case against Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc. K2M, Inc. v. OrthoPediatrics Corp. et al. (DDE) — Counsel for K2M, Inc. (acquired by Stryker in 2018) in trademark case related to competing “JIMINY” and “CRICKET” products, resulting in favorable settlement Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1038/1039 (ITC) — Counsel for Complainant Nokia Technologies Oy in bifurcated patent cases, resulting in favorable settlement Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, 337-TA-1002 (ITC) — Counsel for Respondent Jiangsu Shagang International Trade Co., Ltd. in case involving antitrust and unfair tariff evasion, resulting in successful defense and dismissal of Complaint Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-972/989 (ITC) — Counsel for Diebold Nixdorf in offensive and defensive cases against competitor Nautilus Hyosung Diebold, Inc. v. Content Extraction and Transmission LLC (DNJ) — Counsel for Diebold in declaratory judgment action involving tortious interference and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (\"RICO\") Act, resulting in finding of patent invalidity","searchable_name":"Brian Hill","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":448731,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5488,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDara Kurlancheek is a first chair trial attorney with nearly 20 years of experience in complex patent litigation. A registered patent attorney with a degree in electrical engineering, Dara has built a reputation for managing high-stakes cases across the financial services, technology, pharmaceutical and airline industries. Over her career, Dara has had significant victories on both sides of the aisle, having won tens of millions of dollars for clients and also obtaining a complete jury verdict defending against a $2.3 billion-dollar claim. Her litigation successes include district court trials, ITC cases, and arbitrations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe technology in the cases that Dara has handled spans a wide range, including electronic banking systems, computer memory systems, mammography systems; customer service and payment acceptance technologies, video analytics, bladder cancer treatments, sonar imaging systems, aviation weather detection and navigation systems; computer systems for backup of internet-based data processing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe also advises on international and domestic disputes involving patent licensing, trade secrets, contract breaches, and unfair competition. Dara regularly counsels on issues like trade secret protection, non-compete agreements, and franchise or third-party contract disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDara previously served as Deputy Chair of King \u0026amp; Spalding's Intellectual Property team and is a recurring guest lecturer at The Pennsylvania State University Smeal College of Business.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"dara-kurlancheek","email":"dkurlancheek@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). 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). 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\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\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ebuySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Google against buySAFE\u0026rsquo;s claims of patent infringement. The technology includes online transaction performance guarantees. Successfully argued the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC \u0026sect; 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: normal !msorm; font-style: normal !msorm;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines and other major international airlines 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\u003eGemalto, Inc. v. Merchant Customer Exchange\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Commercial arbitration in which our client claimed improper termination of a service contract for the provision of a mobile payment platform. After a week-long arbitration before a three-judge panel, won $45.8 million (including attorney fees) for improper termination in a complete victory for our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System has been 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. US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended multiple major airlines in actions brought in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eUS 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\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Media Temple\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. 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\u003eSuccessfully obtained a judgment of priority on behalf of client in a patent interference related to computers that use point-to-point links to transfer data between a memory controller and buffered memory. (B.P.A.I. Decision 2010).\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":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Kurlancheek","nick_name":"Dara","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Dara","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":734,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Washington, D.C., “Rising Star”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015-2019"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDara Kurlancheek is a first chair trial attorney with nearly 20 years of experience in complex patent litigation. A registered patent attorney with a degree in electrical engineering, Dara has built a reputation for managing high-stakes cases across the financial services, technology, pharmaceutical and airline industries. Over her career, Dara has had significant victories on both sides of the aisle, having won tens of millions of dollars for clients and also obtaining a complete jury verdict defending against a $2.3 billion-dollar claim. Her litigation successes include district court trials, ITC cases, and arbitrations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe technology in the cases that Dara has handled spans a wide range, including electronic banking systems, computer memory systems, mammography systems; customer service and payment acceptance technologies, video analytics, bladder cancer treatments, sonar imaging systems, aviation weather detection and navigation systems; computer systems for backup of internet-based data processing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe also advises on international and domestic disputes involving patent licensing, trade secrets, contract breaches, and unfair competition. Dara regularly counsels on issues like trade secret protection, non-compete agreements, and franchise or third-party contract disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDara previously served as Deputy Chair of King \u0026amp; Spalding's Intellectual Property team and is a recurring guest lecturer at The Pennsylvania State University Smeal College of Business.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). 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). 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\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\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ebuySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Google against buySAFE\u0026rsquo;s claims of patent infringement. The technology includes online transaction performance guarantees. Successfully argued the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC \u0026sect; 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: normal !msorm; font-style: normal !msorm;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines and other major international airlines 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\u003eGemalto, Inc. v. Merchant Customer Exchange\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Commercial arbitration in which our client claimed improper termination of a service contract for the provision of a mobile payment platform. After a week-long arbitration before a three-judge panel, won $45.8 million (including attorney fees) for improper termination in a complete victory for our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System has been 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. US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended multiple major airlines in actions brought in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eUS 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\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Media Temple\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. 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\u003eSuccessfully obtained a judgment of priority on behalf of client in a patent interference related to computers that use point-to-point links to transfer data between a memory controller and buffered memory. (B.P.A.I. Decision 2010).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Washington, D.C., “Rising Star”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015-2019"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10852}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T21:58:16.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T21:58:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Kurlancheek{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Washington, D.C., “Rising Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2015-2019\"}{{ FIELD }}Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). 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). 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 }}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 }}Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (Eastern District of Texas). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.{{ FIELD }}buySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc. Represented Google against buySAFE’s claims of patent infringement. The technology includes online transaction performance guarantees. Successfully argued 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).{{ FIELD }}Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. et al. (Eastern District of Texas). Counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines and other major international airlines 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 }}Gemalto, Inc. v. Merchant Customer Exchange. Commercial arbitration in which our client claimed improper termination of a service contract for the provision of a mobile payment platform. After a week-long arbitration before a three-judge panel, won $45.8 million (including attorney fees) for improper termination in a complete victory for our client.{{ FIELD }}Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Represented Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System has been 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. US Airways. Defended multiple major airlines in actions brought in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Represented 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).{{ FIELD }}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 }}Successfully obtained a judgment of priority on behalf of client in a patent interference related to computers that use point-to-point links to transfer data between a memory controller and buffered memory. (B.P.A.I. Decision 2010).{{ FIELD }}Dara Kurlancheek is a first chair trial attorney with nearly 20 years of experience in complex patent litigation. A registered patent attorney with a degree in electrical engineering, Dara has built a reputation for managing high-stakes cases across the financial services, technology, pharmaceutical and airline industries. Over her career, Dara has had significant victories on both sides of the aisle, having won tens of millions of dollars for clients and also obtaining a complete jury verdict defending against a $2.3 billion-dollar claim. Her litigation successes include district court trials, ITC cases, and arbitrations.\nThe technology in the cases that Dara has handled spans a wide range, including electronic banking systems, computer memory systems, mammography systems; customer service and payment acceptance technologies, video analytics, bladder cancer treatments, sonar imaging systems, aviation weather detection and navigation systems; computer systems for backup of internet-based data processing.\nShe also advises on international and domestic disputes involving patent licensing, trade secrets, contract breaches, and unfair competition. Dara regularly counsels on issues like trade secret protection, non-compete agreements, and franchise or third-party contract disputes.\nDara previously served as Deputy Chair of King \u0026amp; Spalding's Intellectual Property team and is a recurring guest lecturer at The Pennsylvania State University Smeal College of Business. Partner Named Washington, D.C., “Rising Star” Super Lawyers, 2015-2019 Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 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 Eastern District of Texas District of Columbia New York Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). 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). 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. 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. Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (Eastern District of Texas). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems. buySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc. Represented Google against buySAFE’s claims of patent infringement. The technology includes online transaction performance guarantees. Successfully argued 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). Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. et al. (Eastern District of Texas). Counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines and other major international airlines 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. Gemalto, Inc. v. Merchant Customer Exchange. Commercial arbitration in which our client claimed improper termination of a service contract for the provision of a mobile payment platform. After a week-long arbitration before a three-judge panel, won $45.8 million (including attorney fees) for improper termination in a complete victory for our client. Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Represented Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System has been 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. US Airways. Defended multiple major airlines in actions brought in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011). Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Represented 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). Successfully obtained a judgment of priority on behalf of client in a patent interference related to computers that use point-to-point links to transfer data between a memory controller and buffered memory. (B.P.A.I. Decision 2010).","searchable_name":"Dara M. Kurlancheek","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":448868,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":895,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSteve Orava focuses on international trade and related regulatory and policy matters, including litigation and enforcement. As Chair of our International Trade practice and the manager of our Brussels office, Steve represents clients in a wide range of trade investigations and disputes.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve advises clients on international trade, market access, investment, climate change,\u0026nbsp;and other regulatory and policy matters, including related litigation and enforcement actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve advises clients in anti-dumping, countervailing duty (anti-subsidy) and safeguard proceedings in Australia, Brazil, China, the EU, India, Mexico, the United States,\u0026nbsp;and other countries in a broad range of sectors, including chemicals, steel, textiles, agriculture and certain high-tech products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Steve\u0026nbsp;has market leading experience\u0026nbsp;in the design, analysis,\u0026nbsp;and implementation of carbon border and other trade-related climate measures (including the EU's CBAM and implementation of California's climate change law, AB 32).\u0026nbsp;He also has substantial experience in market access, supply chain, trade policy, and dispute settlement matters, including cases under the various agreements of the World Trade Organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve\u0026nbsp;is on the Advisory Board of Indiana University's\u0026nbsp;Manufacturing Policy Institute and is a frequent author and speaker at international trade and WTO seminars worldwide. He is recognized as a Leading Lawyer in Trade Remedies and Trade Policy by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e and as\u0026nbsp;leading practitioner in international trade by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 Switzerland\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eWho's Who Legal Trade and Customs,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eWorld's Leading International Trade Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eLatin Lawyer 250\u003c/em\u003e. He has been named a 2024 Client Service\u0026nbsp;All-Star by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Consulting.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Steve was recognized as an\u0026nbsp;MVP for\u0026nbsp;International Trade by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e in 2024 and 2012.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"stephen-orava","email":"sorava@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 703 303 9653","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3160}]},"expertise":[{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":984,"guid":"984.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":124,"guid":"124.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":125,"guid":"125.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":579,"guid":"579.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Orava","nick_name":"Steve","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Stephen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2024"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Trade Remedies \u0026 Trade Policy","detail":"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2008-2024); Legal 500 US (2024)"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Trade Remedies \u0026 Trade Policy","detail":"Chambers Global, USA (2009-2022)"},{"title":"Leading Practitioner in International Trade","detail":"Chambers Global"},{"title":"Leading Practitioner in International Trade","detail":"Legal 500 Switzerland"},{"title":"Leading Practitioner in International Trade","detail":"Latin Lawyer 250"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal Trade and Customs","detail":""},{"title":"World's Leading International Trade Lawyers","detail":""},{"title":"Inaugural MVP Award for International Trade","detail":"Law360, 2012"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenorava/","seodescription":"Steve Orava focuses on international trade and related regulatory and policy matters, including litigation and enforcement. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":135,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSteve Orava focuses on international trade and related regulatory and policy matters, including litigation and enforcement. As Chair of our International Trade practice and the manager of our Brussels office, Steve represents clients in a wide range of trade investigations and disputes.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve advises clients on international trade, market access, investment, climate change,\u0026nbsp;and other regulatory and policy matters, including related litigation and enforcement actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve advises clients in anti-dumping, countervailing duty (anti-subsidy) and safeguard proceedings in Australia, Brazil, China, the EU, India, Mexico, the United States,\u0026nbsp;and other countries in a broad range of sectors, including chemicals, steel, textiles, agriculture and certain high-tech products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Steve\u0026nbsp;has market leading experience\u0026nbsp;in the design, analysis,\u0026nbsp;and implementation of carbon border and other trade-related climate measures (including the EU's CBAM and implementation of California's climate change law, AB 32).\u0026nbsp;He also has substantial experience in market access, supply chain, trade policy, and dispute settlement matters, including cases under the various agreements of the World Trade Organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve\u0026nbsp;is on the Advisory Board of Indiana University's\u0026nbsp;Manufacturing Policy Institute and is a frequent author and speaker at international trade and WTO seminars worldwide. He is recognized as a Leading Lawyer in Trade Remedies and Trade Policy by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e and as\u0026nbsp;leading practitioner in international trade by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 Switzerland\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eWho's Who Legal Trade and Customs,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eWorld's Leading International Trade Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eLatin Lawyer 250\u003c/em\u003e. He has been named a 2024 Client Service\u0026nbsp;All-Star by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Consulting.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Steve was recognized as an\u0026nbsp;MVP for\u0026nbsp;International Trade by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e in 2024 and 2012.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2024"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Trade Remedies \u0026 Trade Policy","detail":"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2008-2024); Legal 500 US (2024)"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Trade Remedies \u0026 Trade Policy","detail":"Chambers Global, USA (2009-2022)"},{"title":"Leading Practitioner in International Trade","detail":"Chambers Global"},{"title":"Leading Practitioner in International Trade","detail":"Legal 500 Switzerland"},{"title":"Leading Practitioner in International Trade","detail":"Latin Lawyer 250"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal Trade and Customs","detail":""},{"title":"World's Leading International Trade Lawyers","detail":""},{"title":"Inaugural MVP Award for International Trade","detail":"Law360, 2012"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11087}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:08:58.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:08:58.000Z","searchable_text":"Orava{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Consulting, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Trade Remedies \u0026amp; Trade Policy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2008-2024); Legal 500 US (2024)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Trade Remedies \u0026amp; Trade Policy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, USA (2009-2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Practitioner in International Trade\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Practitioner in International Trade\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Switzerland\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Practitioner in International Trade\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Latin Lawyer 250\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal Trade and Customs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"World's Leading International Trade Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Inaugural MVP Award for International Trade\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}Steve Orava focuses on international trade and related regulatory and policy matters, including litigation and enforcement. As Chair of our International Trade practice and the manager of our Brussels office, Steve represents clients in a wide range of trade investigations and disputes. \nSteve advises clients on international trade, market access, investment, climate change, and other regulatory and policy matters, including related litigation and enforcement actions.\nSteve advises clients in anti-dumping, countervailing duty (anti-subsidy) and safeguard proceedings in Australia, Brazil, China, the EU, India, Mexico, the United States, and other countries in a broad range of sectors, including chemicals, steel, textiles, agriculture and certain high-tech products.\nIn addition, Steve has market leading experience in the design, analysis, and implementation of carbon border and other trade-related climate measures (including the EU's CBAM and implementation of California's climate change law, AB 32). He also has substantial experience in market access, supply chain, trade policy, and dispute settlement matters, including cases under the various agreements of the World Trade Organization.\nSteve is on the Advisory Board of Indiana University's Manufacturing Policy Institute and is a frequent author and speaker at international trade and WTO seminars worldwide. He is recognized as a Leading Lawyer in Trade Remedies and Trade Policy by Legal 500 U.S. and as leading practitioner in international trade by Chambers USA, Chambers Global, Legal 500 Switzerland, Who's Who Legal Trade and Customs, World's Leading International Trade Lawyers, and Latin Lawyer 250. He has been named a 2024 Client Service All-Star by BTI Consulting. Steve was recognized as an MVP for International Trade by Law360 in 2024 and 2012. Steve Orava lawyer Partner Named Client Service All-Star BTI Consulting, 2024 Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Trade Remedies \u0026amp; Trade Policy Chambers USA, Nationwide (2008-2024); Legal 500 US (2024) Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Trade Remedies \u0026amp; Trade Policy Chambers Global, USA (2009-2022) Leading Practitioner in International Trade Chambers Global Leading Practitioner in International Trade Legal 500 Switzerland Leading Practitioner in International Trade Latin Lawyer 250 Who's Who Legal Trade and Customs  World's Leading International Trade Lawyers  Inaugural MVP Award for International Trade Law360, 2012 Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law London School of Economics and Political Science, UK London School of Economics and Political Science, UK Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center District of Columbia Member, Advisory Board, Manufacturing Policy Initiative, Paul H. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University","searchable_name":"Stephen J. Orava (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":448866,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":924,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Telep focuses on the litigation of high-profile international trade disputes and is the head of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Section 337 practice at the U.S. International Trade Commission. \u0026nbsp;He also represents clients in antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguards investigations at the ITC and U.S. Department of Commerce; Section 232 investigations at the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security; Customs civil penalty investigations, \u0026nbsp;prior disclosures, and seizure and forfeiture matters; Section 301 investigations at the U.S. Trade Representative\u0026rsquo;s Office; international trade litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court; other commercial litigation and arbitration; and international trade compliance matters. \u0026nbsp;Jeff is a Past President of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association (2019), the premier association of Section 337 trial lawyers and is the co-chair of the judicial nominations committee of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith more than 25 years of experience, Jeff is the head of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Section 337 practice at the U.S. International Trade Commission. \u0026nbsp;He also represents clients in antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguards investigations at the ITC and U.S. Department of Commerce; Section 232 investigations at the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security; Customs civil penalty investigations, prior disclosures, and seizure and forfeiture matters; Section 301 investigations at the U.S. Trade Representative\u0026rsquo;s Office; international trade litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court; other commercial litigation and arbitration; and international trade compliance matters. \u0026nbsp;Jeff has represented clients in multiple industries, including semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, RFID devices, smart thermostats, LiDAR devices, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, optical devices, automotive, and other consumer and industrial goods.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff also counsels clients on international trade regulatory matters, including Office of Foreign Assets Control economic sanctions matters, Customs and foreign trade zone issues, and Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has been rated in 2020-2024\u0026nbsp;by \u003cem\u003eChambers \u003c/em\u003eand Legal 500 for his expertise in Section 337 investigations, has been rated for multiple years by Best Lawyers in America for International Trade and Finance, has been rated in 2022 by Who\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal for Trade and Customs, and has been a Washington, D.C. Superlawyer since 2015. \u0026nbsp;Client and peer reviews in \u003cem\u003eChambers and Legal 500\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003esay Jeff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;mastery at grasping the facts and issues of our complex case, crafting persuasive pleadings and explaining the reasoning behind various arguments rooted in law is unmatched. \u0026nbsp;Jeff is probably the most capable and knowledgeable ITC lawyer in the United States.\u0026nbsp; Jeff\u0026rsquo;s advice on our ITC case has been correct, his interpretation of the results have been correct and he has provided great recommendations.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff is on Georgetown University's International Trade Update Advisory Board and has served on \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e Advisory Board for Intellectual Property to advise on developments under Section 337 of the Tariff Act. \u0026nbsp;He was appointed by the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade to the Court\u0026rsquo;s Rules Advisory Committee for two consecutive five-year terms (2008-2018). \u0026nbsp;Jeff also is a former member of the Board of Directors of the American Danish Business Council.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Jeff spent six years as a trial attorney with the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. During his tenure, he was lead counsel in more than 75 international trade disputes. \u0026nbsp;He started his career as a law clerk for the Honorable G. Kendall Sharp, U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeffrey-telep","email":"jtelep@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 703 400 7280","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSection 337 Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Blood Flow Restriction Devices With Rotatable Windlasses,\u003c/em\u003e Inv. No. 337-TA-1364 (represents complainants \u003cstrong\u003eComposite Resources, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eNorth American Rescue\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Networking Devices,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1298 (represents third parties\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTrive Capital Management\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eF5 Networks\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Tunable Lenses,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1282 (represented Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHolochip Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Smart Theromstats and Load Control Switches,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1277 (represents Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCausam Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Networking Devices,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1275 (represented Respondent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eF5 Networks\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain LiDAR Devices,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1274 (represented Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCriterion Technologies\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Photovoltaic Cells And Modules,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eInv. No. 337-TA-1271 (represents Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Silicon Group Technologies\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1234 (represented Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain In Vitro Fertilization Products,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eInv. No. 337-TA-1196 (represents Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEMD Serono, Inc\u003c/strong\u003e.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Lithium Ion Batteries,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1159 (represented Respondent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSK Innovations\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Vehicle Security Remote And Convenience Systems,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eInv. No. 337-TA-1152 (represented Respondents\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAutomotive Data Solutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirstech\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Synthetically Produced, Predominently EPA Omega 3 Products In Ethyl Ester Or Re-Esterified Triglyceride Form,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eDocket No. 3247 (represented Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmarin Pharmaceuticals\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1000 (represents Respondents\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eContixo Co.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ZTO Trading, Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Personal Transporters\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-935 (represents Respondents\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePowerUnion (Beijing)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology Co., Ltd.; Ninebot (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd.; and Ninebot, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets II\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-905 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-895 (represented respondents\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eW.C. Bradley Co. and Rankam Metal Products Manufactory Ltd., and Zhejiang Fudeer Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets, and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof, and Associated Software,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInv. No. 337-TA-882\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRhapsody International Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Integrated Circuit Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-873 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Mobile Handset Devices and Related Touch Keyboard Software\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-864 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePersonal Communications Devices\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-855 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMagnetic Component Engineering\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain CMOS Image Sensors\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-846 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Portable Communication Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-827 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-724 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-710 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-707 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eInfineon AG\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-665 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQimonda AG\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Flash Memory Chips\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-664 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSpansion, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-648 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQimonda AG\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Nitrile Gloves\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-608 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTillotson Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-605 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBroadcom Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Lighting Products, Components Thereof,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eInv. No. 337-TA-594 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCooper Lighting\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Litigation and Appeals\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eUS Magnesium LLC v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 839 F.3d 1023, (Fed. Cir. 2016) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUS Magnesium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an appeal of the decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade on a cost accounting issue).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInterDigital Communications, LLC v. Int\u0026rsquo;l Trade Comm\u0026rsquo;n\u003c/em\u003e, 718 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHewlett-Packard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eamicus brief\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in support of appellant on Section 337 domestic industry issue).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePSC VSMPO-Avisma v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 688 F.3d 751 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUS Magnesium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an appeal that reversed the U.S. Court of International Trade\u0026rsquo;s antidumping decision on a cost accounting issue).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGPX Int\u0026rsquo;l Tire Corp. v. United States,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;666 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBridgestone Tire\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in challenge to the application of the countervailing duty law to non-market economy countries).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSKF USA, Inc. v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe American Furniture Manufacturers\u0026rsquo; Committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful defense of the constitutionality of the Continued Dumping And Subsidy Offset Act).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCanadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 517 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUS Magnesium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arguing for the application of the Continued Dumping And Subsidy Offset Act to goods imported from NAFTA countries).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagnola Metallurgy, Inc. v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 508 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUS Magnesium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful defense of Commerce Department\u0026rsquo;s countervailing duty determination on magnesium from Canada).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUS Magnesium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful challenge to the U.S. Court of International Trade\u0026rsquo;s decision requiring duty assessment set off in countervailing duty case on magnesium from Canada).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 424 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicron Technology\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of the Commerce Department\u0026rsquo;s antidumping duty determination on DRAMs from Korea).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCEMEX, SA v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 384 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (represented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAd Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a challenge to customs\u0026rsquo; interpretation of the deemed liquidation statute).\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":148}]},"expertise":[{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":124,"guid":"124.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":803,"guid":"803.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":18,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":19,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Telep","nick_name":"Jeff","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. G. Kendall Sharp, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida","years_held":"1989-1991"}],"first_name":"Jeffrey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"Jeff Telep is an experienced ITC litigator who commands a firm grasp on case law and Commission precedent.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2025"},{"title":"\"Jeffrey is a Section 337 expert and works with the client to help them understand the relevant technical language.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2025"},{"title":"\"Jeffrey Telep has a firm grasp on case precedent and guides clients to favorable outcomes.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2025"},{"title":"\"Jeffrey Telep is an excellent and experienced counsel.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2025"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337)","detail":"Chambers Global, USA (2021, 2023, 2024)"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337)","detail":"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2020-2024)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation (International Trade Commission)","detail":"Legal 500 US (2022-2024)"},{"title":"\"Beyond Jeff's deep experience and expertise, he has mastered all of the key technical and commercial issues at play.\"","detail":"Chambers USA client, 2024"},{"title":"“Jeff Telep is probably the most capable and knowledgeable ITC lawyer in the United States.”","detail":"Legal 500 client, 2024"},{"title":"“Jeff’s advice on our ITC case has been correct, and he has provided great recommendations.”","detail":"Legal 500 client, 2024"},{"title":"“Jeff Telep is thoughtful, articulate and knowledgeable.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"\"His mastery at … pleadings and explaining the reasoning behind various arguments rooted in law is unmatched.\"","detail":"Chambers Global (2022)"},{"title":"“One of the smartest ITC practitioners in the industry.”","detail":"LEGAL 500 2022"},{"title":"\"He knows his ITC subject matter, has a very deliberate manner and is a cool head under fire.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2021"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and perceptive attorney who has the ability to understand needs and find subtle solutions to problems.\"","detail":"Chambers 2020"},{"title":"International Trade and Finance Law","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2015-2020"},{"title":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015–2020"},{"title":"AV Preeminent (highest rating): International Trade, Patents \u0026 Antitrust and Trade Regulation","detail":"Martindale Hubbell"},{"title":"“Highly experienced with intellectual property cases before the ITC.”","detail":"Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers"},{"title":"“A first-rate, highly regarded international trade litigator.”","detail":"Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers"},{"title":"“Extremely knowledgeable and quick on his feet”; “a real asset to any client.” ","detail":"Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers"},{"title":"Attorney General’s Special Achievement Award","detail":"1992, 1994 and 1996"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreytelep/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Telep focuses on the litigation of high-profile international trade disputes and is the head of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Section 337 practice at the U.S. International Trade Commission. \u0026nbsp;He also represents clients in antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguards investigations at the ITC and U.S. Department of Commerce; Section 232 investigations at the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security; Customs civil penalty investigations, \u0026nbsp;prior disclosures, and seizure and forfeiture matters; Section 301 investigations at the U.S. Trade Representative\u0026rsquo;s Office; international trade litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court; other commercial litigation and arbitration; and international trade compliance matters. \u0026nbsp;Jeff is a Past President of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association (2019), the premier association of Section 337 trial lawyers and is the co-chair of the judicial nominations committee of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith more than 25 years of experience, Jeff is the head of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Section 337 practice at the U.S. International Trade Commission. \u0026nbsp;He also represents clients in antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguards investigations at the ITC and U.S. Department of Commerce; Section 232 investigations at the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security; Customs civil penalty investigations, prior disclosures, and seizure and forfeiture matters; Section 301 investigations at the U.S. Trade Representative\u0026rsquo;s Office; international trade litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court; other commercial litigation and arbitration; and international trade compliance matters. \u0026nbsp;Jeff has represented clients in multiple industries, including semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, RFID devices, smart thermostats, LiDAR devices, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, optical devices, automotive, and other consumer and industrial goods.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff also counsels clients on international trade regulatory matters, including Office of Foreign Assets Control economic sanctions matters, Customs and foreign trade zone issues, and Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has been rated in 2020-2024\u0026nbsp;by \u003cem\u003eChambers \u003c/em\u003eand Legal 500 for his expertise in Section 337 investigations, has been rated for multiple years by Best Lawyers in America for International Trade and Finance, has been rated in 2022 by Who\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal for Trade and Customs, and has been a Washington, D.C. Superlawyer since 2015. \u0026nbsp;Client and peer reviews in \u003cem\u003eChambers and Legal 500\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003esay Jeff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;mastery at grasping the facts and issues of our complex case, crafting persuasive pleadings and explaining the reasoning behind various arguments rooted in law is unmatched. \u0026nbsp;Jeff is probably the most capable and knowledgeable ITC lawyer in the United States.\u0026nbsp; Jeff\u0026rsquo;s advice on our ITC case has been correct, his interpretation of the results have been correct and he has provided great recommendations.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff is on Georgetown University's International Trade Update Advisory Board and has served on \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e Advisory Board for Intellectual Property to advise on developments under Section 337 of the Tariff Act. \u0026nbsp;He was appointed by the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade to the Court\u0026rsquo;s Rules Advisory Committee for two consecutive five-year terms (2008-2018). \u0026nbsp;Jeff also is a former member of the Board of Directors of the American Danish Business Council.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Jeff spent six years as a trial attorney with the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. During his tenure, he was lead counsel in more than 75 international trade disputes. \u0026nbsp;He started his career as a law clerk for the Honorable G. Kendall Sharp, U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSection 337 Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Blood Flow Restriction Devices With Rotatable Windlasses,\u003c/em\u003e Inv. No. 337-TA-1364 (represents complainants \u003cstrong\u003eComposite Resources, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eNorth American Rescue\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Networking Devices,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1298 (represents third parties\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTrive Capital Management\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eF5 Networks\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Tunable Lenses,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1282 (represented Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHolochip Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Smart Theromstats and Load Control Switches,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1277 (represents Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCausam Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Networking Devices,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1275 (represented Respondent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eF5 Networks\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain LiDAR Devices,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1274 (represented Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCriterion Technologies\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Photovoltaic Cells And Modules,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eInv. No. 337-TA-1271 (represents Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Silicon Group Technologies\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1234 (represented Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain In Vitro Fertilization Products,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eInv. No. 337-TA-1196 (represents Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEMD Serono, Inc\u003c/strong\u003e.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Lithium Ion Batteries,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-1159 (represented Respondent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSK Innovations\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Vehicle Security Remote And Convenience Systems,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eInv. No. 337-TA-1152 (represented Respondents\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAutomotive Data Solutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirstech\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Synthetically Produced, Predominently EPA Omega 3 Products In Ethyl Ester Or Re-Esterified Triglyceride Form,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eDocket No. 3247 (represented Complainant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmarin Pharmaceuticals\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1000 (represents Respondents\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eContixo Co.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;ZTO Trading, Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Personal Transporters\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-935 (represents Respondents\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePowerUnion (Beijing)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology Co., Ltd.; Ninebot (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd.; and Ninebot, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets II\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-905 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Inv. No. 337-TA-895 (represented respondents\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eW.C. Bradley Co. and Rankam Metal Products Manufactory Ltd., and Zhejiang Fudeer Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets, and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof, and Associated Software,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInv. No. 337-TA-882\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRhapsody International Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Integrated Circuit Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-873 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Mobile Handset Devices and Related Touch Keyboard Software\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-864 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePersonal Communications Devices\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-855 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMagnetic Component Engineering\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain CMOS Image Sensors\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-846 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Portable Communication Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-827 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-724 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-710 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-707 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eInfineon AG\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-665 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQimonda AG\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Flash Memory Chips\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-664 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSpansion, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-648 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQimonda AG\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Nitrile Gloves\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-608 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTillotson Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-605 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBroadcom Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCertain Lighting Products, Components Thereof,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eInv. No. 337-TA-594 (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCooper Lighting\u003c/strong\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Litigation and Appeals\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eUS Magnesium LLC v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 839 F.3d 1023, (Fed. Cir. 2016) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUS Magnesium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an appeal of the decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade on a cost accounting issue).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInterDigital Communications, LLC v. Int\u0026rsquo;l Trade Comm\u0026rsquo;n\u003c/em\u003e, 718 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHewlett-Packard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eamicus brief\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in support of appellant on Section 337 domestic industry issue).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePSC VSMPO-Avisma v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 688 F.3d 751 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUS Magnesium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an appeal that reversed the U.S. Court of International Trade\u0026rsquo;s antidumping decision on a cost accounting issue).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGPX Int\u0026rsquo;l Tire Corp. v. United States,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;666 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBridgestone Tire\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in challenge to the application of the countervailing duty law to non-market economy countries).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSKF USA, Inc. v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe American Furniture Manufacturers\u0026rsquo; Committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful defense of the constitutionality of the Continued Dumping And Subsidy Offset Act).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCanadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 517 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUS Magnesium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arguing for the application of the Continued Dumping And Subsidy Offset Act to goods imported from NAFTA countries).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagnola Metallurgy, Inc. v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 508 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUS Magnesium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful defense of Commerce Department\u0026rsquo;s countervailing duty determination on magnesium from Canada).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUS Magnesium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful challenge to the U.S. Court of International Trade\u0026rsquo;s decision requiring duty assessment set off in countervailing duty case on magnesium from Canada).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 424 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicron Technology\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of the Commerce Department\u0026rsquo;s antidumping duty determination on DRAMs from Korea).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCEMEX, SA v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 384 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (represented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAd Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a challenge to customs\u0026rsquo; interpretation of the deemed liquidation statute).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"Jeff Telep is an experienced ITC litigator who commands a firm grasp on case law and Commission precedent.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2025"},{"title":"\"Jeffrey is a Section 337 expert and works with the client to help them understand the relevant technical language.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2025"},{"title":"\"Jeffrey Telep has a firm grasp on case precedent and guides clients to favorable outcomes.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2025"},{"title":"\"Jeffrey Telep is an excellent and experienced counsel.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2025"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337)","detail":"Chambers Global, USA (2021, 2023, 2024)"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337)","detail":"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2020-2024)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation (International Trade Commission)","detail":"Legal 500 US (2022-2024)"},{"title":"\"Beyond Jeff's deep experience and expertise, he has mastered all of the key technical and commercial issues at play.\"","detail":"Chambers USA client, 2024"},{"title":"“Jeff Telep is probably the most capable and knowledgeable ITC lawyer in the United States.”","detail":"Legal 500 client, 2024"},{"title":"“Jeff’s advice on our ITC case has been correct, and he has provided great recommendations.”","detail":"Legal 500 client, 2024"},{"title":"“Jeff Telep is thoughtful, articulate and knowledgeable.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"\"His mastery at … pleadings and explaining the reasoning behind various arguments rooted in law is unmatched.\"","detail":"Chambers Global (2022)"},{"title":"“One of the smartest ITC practitioners in the industry.”","detail":"LEGAL 500 2022"},{"title":"\"He knows his ITC subject matter, has a very deliberate manner and is a cool head under fire.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2021"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and perceptive attorney who has the ability to understand needs and find subtle solutions to problems.\"","detail":"Chambers 2020"},{"title":"International Trade and Finance Law","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2015-2020"},{"title":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015–2020"},{"title":"AV Preeminent (highest rating): International Trade, Patents \u0026 Antitrust and Trade Regulation","detail":"Martindale Hubbell"},{"title":"“Highly experienced with intellectual property cases before the ITC.”","detail":"Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers"},{"title":"“A first-rate, highly regarded international trade litigator.”","detail":"Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers"},{"title":"“Extremely knowledgeable and quick on his feet”; “a real asset to any client.” ","detail":"Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers"},{"title":"Attorney General’s Special Achievement Award","detail":"1992, 1994 and 1996"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1228}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:08:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:08:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Telep{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Jeff Telep is an experienced ITC litigator who commands a firm grasp on case law and Commission precedent.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Jeffrey is a Section 337 expert and works with the client to help them understand the relevant technical language.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Jeffrey Telep has a firm grasp on case precedent and guides clients to favorable outcomes.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Jeffrey Telep is an excellent and experienced counsel.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, USA (2021, 2023, 2024)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2020-2024)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyer Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation (International Trade Commission)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US (2022-2024)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Beyond Jeff's deep experience and expertise, he has mastered all of the key technical and commercial issues at play.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA client, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Jeff Telep is probably the most capable and knowledgeable ITC lawyer in the United States.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 client, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Jeff’s advice on our ITC case has been correct, and he has provided great recommendations.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 client, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Jeff Telep is thoughtful, articulate and knowledgeable.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"His mastery at … pleadings and explaining the reasoning behind various arguments rooted in law is unmatched.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“One of the smartest ITC practitioners in the industry.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL 500 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He knows his ITC subject matter, has a very deliberate manner and is a cool head under fire.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Knowledgeable and perceptive attorney who has the ability to understand needs and find subtle solutions to problems.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Trade and Finance Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2015-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2015–2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"AV Preeminent (highest rating): International Trade, Patents \u0026amp; Antitrust and Trade Regulation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Martindale Hubbell\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Highly experienced with intellectual property cases before the ITC.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“A first-rate, highly regarded international trade litigator.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Extremely knowledgeable and quick on his feet”; “a real asset to any client.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Attorney General’s Special Achievement Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"1992, 1994 and 1996\"}{{ FIELD }}Section 337 Investigations\nCertain Blood Flow Restriction Devices With Rotatable Windlasses, Inv. No. 337-TA-1364 (represents complainants Composite Resources, Inc. and North American Rescue){{ FIELD }}Certain Networking Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1298 (represents third parties Trive Capital Management and F5 Networks){{ FIELD }}Certain Tunable Lenses, Inv. No. 337-TA-1282 (represented Complainant Holochip Corp.){{ FIELD }}Certain Smart Theromstats and Load Control Switches, Inv. No. 337-TA-1277 (represents Complainant Causam Enterprises){{ FIELD }}Certain Networking Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1275 (represented Respondent F5 Networks){{ FIELD }}Certain LiDAR Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1274 (represented Complainant Criterion Technologies){{ FIELD }}Certain Photovoltaic Cells And Modules, Inv. No. 337-TA-1271 (represents Complainant Advanced Silicon Group Technologies){{ FIELD }}Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234 (represented Complainant Amtech Systems, LLC){{ FIELD }}Certain In Vitro Fertilization Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1196 (represents Complainant EMD Serono, Inc.){{ FIELD }}Certain Lithium Ion Batteries, Inv. No. 337-TA-1159 (represented Respondent SK Innovations){{ FIELD }}Certain Vehicle Security Remote And Convenience Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-1152 (represented Respondents Automotive Data Solutions and Firstech){{ FIELD }}Certain Synthetically Produced, Predominently EPA Omega 3 Products In Ethyl Ester Or Re-Esterified Triglyceride Form, Docket No. 3247 (represented Complainant Amarin Pharmaceuticals){{ FIELD }}Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles, Inv. No. 337-TA-1000 (represents Respondents Contixo Co. and ZTO Trading, Ltd.){{ FIELD }}Certain Personal Transporters, Inv. No. 337-TA-935 (represents Respondents PowerUnion (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.; Ninebot (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd.; and Ninebot, Inc.){{ FIELD }}Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets II, Inv. No. 337-TA-905 (represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.){{ FIELD }}Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills, Inv. No. 337-TA-895 (represented respondents W.C. Bradley Co. and Rankam Metal Products Manufactory Ltd., and Zhejiang Fudeer Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.){{ FIELD }}Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets, and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-882 (represented Rhapsody International Inc.){{ FIELD }}Certain Integrated Circuit Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-873 (represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.){{ FIELD }}Certain Mobile Handset Devices and Related Touch Keyboard Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-864 (represented Personal Communications Devices){{ FIELD }}Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Inv. No. 337-TA-855 (represented Magnetic Component Engineering){{ FIELD }}Certain CMOS Image Sensors, Inv. No. 337-TA-846 (represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.){{ FIELD }}Certain Portable Communication Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-827 (represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.){{ FIELD }}Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-724 (represented Advanced Micro Devices){{ FIELD }}Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-710 (represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.){{ FIELD }}Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors, Inv. No. 337-TA-707 (represented Infineon AG){{ FIELD }}Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits, Inv. No. 337-TA-665 (represented Qimonda AG){{ FIELD }}Certain Flash Memory Chips, Inv. No. 337-TA-664 (represented Spansion, Inc.){{ FIELD }}Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization, Inv. No. 337-TA-648 (represented Qimonda AG){{ FIELD }}Certain Nitrile Gloves, Inv. No. 337-TA-608 (represented Tillotson Corporation){{ FIELD }}Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size, Inv. No. 337-TA-605 (represented Broadcom Corporation){{ FIELD }}Certain Lighting Products, Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-594 (represented Cooper Lighting){{ FIELD }}Other Litigation and AppealsUS Magnesium LLC v. United States, 839 F.3d 1023, (Fed. Cir. 2016) (represented US Magnesium in an appeal of the decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade on a cost accounting issue).\nInterDigital Communications, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 718 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (represented Hewlett-Packard in amicus brief in support of appellant on Section 337 domestic industry issue).\nPSC VSMPO-Avisma v. United States, 688 F.3d 751 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (represented US Magnesium in an appeal that reversed the U.S. Court of International Trade’s antidumping decision on a cost accounting issue).\nGPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 666 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (represented Bridgestone Tire in challenge to the application of the countervailing duty law to non-market economy countries).\nSKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (represented the American Furniture Manufacturers’ Committee in successful defense of the constitutionality of the Continued Dumping And Subsidy Offset Act).\nCanadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States, 517 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (represented US Magnesium in arguing for the application of the Continued Dumping And Subsidy Offset Act to goods imported from NAFTA countries).\nMagnola Metallurgy, Inc. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (represented US Magnesium in successful defense of Commerce Department’s countervailing duty determination on magnesium from Canada).\nNorsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (represented US Magnesium in successful challenge to the U.S. Court of International Trade’s decision requiring duty assessment set off in countervailing duty case on magnesium from Canada).\nHynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (represented Micron Technology in defense of the Commerce Department’s antidumping duty determination on DRAMs from Korea).\nCEMEX, SA v. United States, 384 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (represented the Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement in a challenge to customs’ interpretation of the deemed liquidation statute).{{ FIELD }}Jeff Telep focuses on the litigation of high-profile international trade disputes and is the head of King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Section 337 practice at the U.S. International Trade Commission.  He also represents clients in antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguards investigations at the ITC and U.S. Department of Commerce; Section 232 investigations at the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security; Customs civil penalty investigations,  prior disclosures, and seizure and forfeiture matters; Section 301 investigations at the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office; international trade litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court; other commercial litigation and arbitration; and international trade compliance matters.  Jeff is a Past President of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association (2019), the premier association of Section 337 trial lawyers and is the co-chair of the judicial nominations committee of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association.\nWith more than 25 years of experience, Jeff is the head of King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Section 337 practice at the U.S. International Trade Commission.  He also represents clients in antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguards investigations at the ITC and U.S. Department of Commerce; Section 232 investigations at the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security; Customs civil penalty investigations, prior disclosures, and seizure and forfeiture matters; Section 301 investigations at the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office; international trade litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court; other commercial litigation and arbitration; and international trade compliance matters.  Jeff has represented clients in multiple industries, including semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, RFID devices, smart thermostats, LiDAR devices, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, optical devices, automotive, and other consumer and industrial goods. \nJeff also counsels clients on international trade regulatory matters, including Office of Foreign Assets Control economic sanctions matters, Customs and foreign trade zone issues, and Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering issues.\nJeff has been rated in 2020-2024 by Chambers and Legal 500 for his expertise in Section 337 investigations, has been rated for multiple years by Best Lawyers in America for International Trade and Finance, has been rated in 2022 by Who’s Who Legal for Trade and Customs, and has been a Washington, D.C. Superlawyer since 2015.  Client and peer reviews in Chambers and Legal 500 say Jeff’s “mastery at grasping the facts and issues of our complex case, crafting persuasive pleadings and explaining the reasoning behind various arguments rooted in law is unmatched.  Jeff is probably the most capable and knowledgeable ITC lawyer in the United States.  Jeff’s advice on our ITC case has been correct, his interpretation of the results have been correct and he has provided great recommendations.”\nJeff is on Georgetown University's International Trade Update Advisory Board and has served on Law360’s Advisory Board for Intellectual Property to advise on developments under Section 337 of the Tariff Act.  He was appointed by the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade to the Court’s Rules Advisory Committee for two consecutive five-year terms (2008-2018).  Jeff also is a former member of the Board of Directors of the American Danish Business Council.\nPreviously, Jeff spent six years as a trial attorney with the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. During his tenure, he was lead counsel in more than 75 international trade disputes.  He started his career as a law clerk for the Honorable G. Kendall Sharp, U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida. Jeffrey M Telep Partner \"Jeff Telep is an experienced ITC litigator who commands a firm grasp on case law and Commission precedent.\" Legal 500, 2025 \"Jeffrey is a Section 337 expert and works with the client to help them understand the relevant technical language.\" Chambers, 2025 \"Jeffrey Telep has a firm grasp on case precedent and guides clients to favorable outcomes.\" Chambers, 2025 \"Jeffrey Telep is an excellent and experienced counsel.\" Chambers, 2025 Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) Chambers Global, USA (2021, 2023, 2024) Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) Chambers USA, Nationwide (2020-2024) Leading Lawyer Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation (International Trade Commission) Legal 500 US (2022-2024) \"Beyond Jeff's deep experience and expertise, he has mastered all of the key technical and commercial issues at play.\" Chambers USA client, 2024 “Jeff Telep is probably the most capable and knowledgeable ITC lawyer in the United States.” Legal 500 client, 2024 “Jeff’s advice on our ITC case has been correct, and he has provided great recommendations.” Legal 500 client, 2024 “Jeff Telep is thoughtful, articulate and knowledgeable.\" Legal 500, 2023 \"His mastery at … pleadings and explaining the reasoning behind various arguments rooted in law is unmatched.\" Chambers Global (2022) “One of the smartest ITC practitioners in the industry.” LEGAL 500 2022 \"He knows his ITC subject matter, has a very deliberate manner and is a cool head under fire.\" Chambers USA 2021 \"Knowledgeable and perceptive attorney who has the ability to understand needs and find subtle solutions to problems.\" Chambers 2020 International Trade and Finance Law Best Lawyers in America, 2015-2020 Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer Super Lawyers, 2015–2020 AV Preeminent (highest rating): International Trade, Patents \u0026amp; Antitrust and Trade Regulation Martindale Hubbell “Highly experienced with intellectual property cases before the ITC.” Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers “A first-rate, highly regarded international trade litigator.” Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers “Extremely knowledgeable and quick on his feet”; “a real asset to any client.”  Martindale Hubbell, quoting peers Attorney General’s Special Achievement Award 1992, 1994 and 1996 University of Central Florida  University of Florida Levin College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Court of Federal Claims District of Columbia Florida Federal Circuit Bar Association District of Columbia Bar Association Customs and International Trade Bar Association American Danish Business Council International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association, Immediate Past President Advisory Board Member, Georgetown University International Trade Update CLE Seminar U.S. Court of International Trade Rules Advisory Committee (2008-2018) Judicial Clerk, Hon. G. Kendall Sharp, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Section 337 Investigations\nCertain Blood Flow Restriction Devices With Rotatable Windlasses, Inv. No. 337-TA-1364 (represents complainants Composite Resources, Inc. and North American Rescue) Certain Networking Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1298 (represents third parties Trive Capital Management and F5 Networks) Certain Tunable Lenses, Inv. No. 337-TA-1282 (represented Complainant Holochip Corp.) Certain Smart Theromstats and Load Control Switches, Inv. No. 337-TA-1277 (represents Complainant Causam Enterprises) Certain Networking Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1275 (represented Respondent F5 Networks) Certain LiDAR Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1274 (represented Complainant Criterion Technologies) Certain Photovoltaic Cells And Modules, Inv. No. 337-TA-1271 (represents Complainant Advanced Silicon Group Technologies) Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234 (represented Complainant Amtech Systems, LLC) Certain In Vitro Fertilization Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1196 (represents Complainant EMD Serono, Inc.) Certain Lithium Ion Batteries, Inv. No. 337-TA-1159 (represented Respondent SK Innovations) Certain Vehicle Security Remote And Convenience Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-1152 (represented Respondents Automotive Data Solutions and Firstech) Certain Synthetically Produced, Predominently EPA Omega 3 Products In Ethyl Ester Or Re-Esterified Triglyceride Form, Docket No. 3247 (represented Complainant Amarin Pharmaceuticals) Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles, Inv. No. 337-TA-1000 (represents Respondents Contixo Co. and ZTO Trading, Ltd.) Certain Personal Transporters, Inv. No. 337-TA-935 (represents Respondents PowerUnion (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.; Ninebot (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd.; and Ninebot, Inc.) Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets II, Inv. No. 337-TA-905 (represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.) Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills, Inv. No. 337-TA-895 (represented respondents W.C. Bradley Co. and Rankam Metal Products Manufactory Ltd., and Zhejiang Fudeer Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.) Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets, and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-882 (represented Rhapsody International Inc.) Certain Integrated Circuit Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-873 (represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.) Certain Mobile Handset Devices and Related Touch Keyboard Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-864 (represented Personal Communications Devices) Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Inv. No. 337-TA-855 (represented Magnetic Component Engineering) Certain CMOS Image Sensors, Inv. No. 337-TA-846 (represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.) Certain Portable Communication Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-827 (represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.) Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-724 (represented Advanced Micro Devices) Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-710 (represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.) Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors, Inv. No. 337-TA-707 (represented Infineon AG) Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits, Inv. No. 337-TA-665 (represented Qimonda AG) Certain Flash Memory Chips, Inv. No. 337-TA-664 (represented Spansion, Inc.) Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization, Inv. No. 337-TA-648 (represented Qimonda AG) Certain Nitrile Gloves, Inv. No. 337-TA-608 (represented Tillotson Corporation) Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size, Inv. No. 337-TA-605 (represented Broadcom Corporation) Certain Lighting Products, Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-594 (represented Cooper Lighting) Other Litigation and AppealsUS Magnesium LLC v. United States, 839 F.3d 1023, (Fed. Cir. 2016) (represented US Magnesium in an appeal of the decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade on a cost accounting issue).\nInterDigital Communications, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 718 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (represented Hewlett-Packard in amicus brief in support of appellant on Section 337 domestic industry issue).\nPSC VSMPO-Avisma v. United States, 688 F.3d 751 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (represented US Magnesium in an appeal that reversed the U.S. Court of International Trade’s antidumping decision on a cost accounting issue).\nGPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 666 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (represented Bridgestone Tire in challenge to the application of the countervailing duty law to non-market economy countries).\nSKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (represented the American Furniture Manufacturers’ Committee in successful defense of the constitutionality of the Continued Dumping And Subsidy Offset Act).\nCanadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States, 517 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (represented US Magnesium in arguing for the application of the Continued Dumping And Subsidy Offset Act to goods imported from NAFTA countries).\nMagnola Metallurgy, Inc. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (represented US Magnesium in successful defense of Commerce Department’s countervailing duty determination on magnesium from Canada).\nNorsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (represented US Magnesium in successful challenge to the U.S. Court of International Trade’s decision requiring duty assessment set off in countervailing duty case on magnesium from Canada).\nHynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (represented Micron Technology in defense of the Commerce Department’s antidumping duty determination on DRAMs from Korea).\nCEMEX, SA v. United States, 384 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (represented the Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement in a challenge to customs’ interpretation of the deemed liquidation statute).","searchable_name":"Jeffrey M. Telep (Jeff)","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":446916,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7303,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDanielle Williams is a high-stakes business litigation lawyer. She handles significant, high-profile disputes for publicly traded and privately held companies involving material damages demands. Over her career, she has represented clients in high‑stakes matters in federal and state courts across the country and in arbitrations in patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, breach of contract, antitrust, and environmental matters. Her patent infringement cases have been concentrated in the top patent litigation courts in the country and span a variety of technologies and industries including financial services, high tech, semiconductors, telecommunications, software, mobile applications, and consumer products.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost recently, she helped lead the antitrust trial brought by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, a case that reshaped the sport of premier stock car racing and earned her Am Law Litigator of the Week recognition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on her MBA, Danielle is one of the firm\u0026rsquo;s go-to attorneys for damages issues. She regularly is brought in to develop damages strategy at all stages of cases, including at trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDanielle is regularly recognized as a leading lawyer in industry publications and has been ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026copy; for Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation since 2016 and Patent Litigation since 2017. She was recognized as an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Global Leader in 2026. She was listed in the 2022\u0026ndash;2025\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewhich commented that she is a \u0026ldquo;zealous litigator\u0026hellip;with an abundance of trial experience\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;knows how to address key issues and make all the right strategic plays.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDanielle previously served as managing partner of a major Am Law 50 office and co‑chaired a global IP practice. She co‑founded the ChIPs Carolinas Chapter and has driven initiatives that strengthened pipelines across the profession.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOutside of the law, she has served on many boards, including National Sports Media Association, Wake Forest University\u0026rsquo;s Face to Face, Salem Academy and College, NextNow for UNC School of Arts, and Brenner Children\u0026rsquo;s Hospital, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDanielle has first-chaired, led, and consulted in numerous litigations in multiple venues, including the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; the 11\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals; the United States International Trade Commission (ITC); the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); Federal District Courts in North Carolina (W.D.N.C., M.D.N.C., E.D.N.C.), Georgia (N.D. Ga.), California (N.D. Cal., C.D. Cal.), Texas (E.D. Tex., N.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex. including Waco), Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Colorado, New Jersey, New York; as well as arbitrations before the ICC and AAA.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"danielle-williams-2","email":"dwilliams@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":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Williams","nick_name":"Danielle","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Danielle","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2471,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1996-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week for the antitrust trial brought by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, a case that reshaped the sport of premier stock car racing","detail":"The American Lawyer, December 19, 2025"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week Runner-Up for securing a preliminary injunction against NASCAR in the monopolization case brought on behalf of Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin’s racing team, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports Inc.","detail":"The American Lawyer, December 20, 2024"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week First Runner-Up for a defense verdict for U.S. Well Services LLC in a patent showdown with electric fracking rival Halliburton Energy Services Inc. Not only did jurors in Waco, Texas, find that U.S. Well Services did not infringe upon any of the three patents Halliburton asserted at trial, but they also found two of those patents invalid due to obviousness","detail":"The American Lawyer, September 1, 2023"},{"title":"IAM Patent 1000","detail":"IAM, 2022–2025"},{"title":"Global Leader","detail":"IAM, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Trade Secrets and Patents","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer,” Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2016–2026"},{"title":"Patent Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2017-2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP \u0026 Patent Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025 "},{"title":"“Women in Business Award” ","detail":"Charlotte Business Journal, 2025"},{"title":"Women, Influence \u0026 Power in Law’s “Managing Partner of the Year”","detail":"Corporate Counsel, 2024"},{"title":"North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society","detail":"2016-2018, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDanielle Williams is a high-stakes business litigation lawyer. She handles significant, high-profile disputes for publicly traded and privately held companies involving material damages demands. Over her career, she has represented clients in high‑stakes matters in federal and state courts across the country and in arbitrations in patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, breach of contract, antitrust, and environmental matters. Her patent infringement cases have been concentrated in the top patent litigation courts in the country and span a variety of technologies and industries including financial services, high tech, semiconductors, telecommunications, software, mobile applications, and consumer products.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost recently, she helped lead the antitrust trial brought by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, a case that reshaped the sport of premier stock car racing and earned her Am Law Litigator of the Week recognition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on her MBA, Danielle is one of the firm\u0026rsquo;s go-to attorneys for damages issues. She regularly is brought in to develop damages strategy at all stages of cases, including at trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDanielle is regularly recognized as a leading lawyer in industry publications and has been ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026copy; for Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation since 2016 and Patent Litigation since 2017. She was recognized as an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Global Leader in 2026. She was listed in the 2022\u0026ndash;2025\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewhich commented that she is a \u0026ldquo;zealous litigator\u0026hellip;with an abundance of trial experience\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;knows how to address key issues and make all the right strategic plays.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDanielle previously served as managing partner of a major Am Law 50 office and co‑chaired a global IP practice. She co‑founded the ChIPs Carolinas Chapter and has driven initiatives that strengthened pipelines across the profession.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOutside of the law, she has served on many boards, including National Sports Media Association, Wake Forest University\u0026rsquo;s Face to Face, Salem Academy and College, NextNow for UNC School of Arts, and Brenner Children\u0026rsquo;s Hospital, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDanielle has first-chaired, led, and consulted in numerous litigations in multiple venues, including the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; the 11\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals; the United States International Trade Commission (ITC); the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); Federal District Courts in North Carolina (W.D.N.C., M.D.N.C., E.D.N.C.), Georgia (N.D. Ga.), California (N.D. Cal., C.D. Cal.), Texas (E.D. Tex., N.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex. including Waco), Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Colorado, New Jersey, New York; as well as arbitrations before the ICC and AAA.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week for the antitrust trial brought by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, a case that reshaped the sport of premier stock car racing","detail":"The American Lawyer, December 19, 2025"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week Runner-Up for securing a preliminary injunction against NASCAR in the monopolization case brought on behalf of Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin’s racing team, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports Inc.","detail":"The American Lawyer, December 20, 2024"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week First Runner-Up for a defense verdict for U.S. Well Services LLC in a patent showdown with electric fracking rival Halliburton Energy Services Inc. Not only did jurors in Waco, Texas, find that U.S. Well Services did not infringe upon any of the three patents Halliburton asserted at trial, but they also found two of those patents invalid due to obviousness","detail":"The American Lawyer, September 1, 2023"},{"title":"IAM Patent 1000","detail":"IAM, 2022–2025"},{"title":"Global Leader","detail":"IAM, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Trade Secrets and Patents","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer,” Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2016–2026"},{"title":"Patent Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2017-2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP \u0026 Patent Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025 "},{"title":"“Women in Business Award” ","detail":"Charlotte Business Journal, 2025"},{"title":"Women, Influence \u0026 Power in Law’s “Managing Partner of the Year”","detail":"Corporate Counsel, 2024"},{"title":"North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society","detail":"2016-2018, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13429}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-20T20:43:04.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-20T20:43:04.000Z","searchable_text":"Williams{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week for the antitrust trial brought by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, a case that reshaped the sport of premier stock car racing\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, December 19, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week Runner-Up for securing a preliminary injunction against NASCAR in the monopolization case brought on behalf of Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin’s racing team, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports Inc.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, December 20, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week First Runner-Up for a defense verdict for U.S. Well Services LLC in a patent showdown with electric fracking rival Halliburton Energy Services Inc. Not only did jurors in Waco, Texas, find that U.S. Well Services did not infringe upon any of the three patents Halliburton asserted at trial, but they also found two of those patents invalid due to obviousness\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, September 1, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM, 2022–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Global Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Trade Secrets and Patents\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WIPR Leaders, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer,” Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2016–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2017-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP \u0026amp; Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Women in Business Award” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Charlotte Business Journal, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Women, Influence \u0026amp; Power in Law’s “Managing Partner of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Corporate Counsel, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2016-2018, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Danielle Williams is a high-stakes business litigation lawyer. She handles significant, high-profile disputes for publicly traded and privately held companies involving material damages demands. Over her career, she has represented clients in high‑stakes matters in federal and state courts across the country and in arbitrations in patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, breach of contract, antitrust, and environmental matters. Her patent infringement cases have been concentrated in the top patent litigation courts in the country and span a variety of technologies and industries including financial services, high tech, semiconductors, telecommunications, software, mobile applications, and consumer products.\nMost recently, she helped lead the antitrust trial brought by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, a case that reshaped the sport of premier stock car racing and earned her Am Law Litigator of the Week recognition.\nBuilding on her MBA, Danielle is one of the firm’s go-to attorneys for damages issues. She regularly is brought in to develop damages strategy at all stages of cases, including at trial.\nDanielle is regularly recognized as a leading lawyer in industry publications and has been ranked in The Best Lawyers in America© for Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation since 2016 and Patent Litigation since 2017. She was recognized as an IAM Global Leader in 2026. She was listed in the 2022–2025 IAM Patent 1000, which commented that she is a “zealous litigator…with an abundance of trial experience” who “knows how to address key issues and make all the right strategic plays.”\nDanielle previously served as managing partner of a major Am Law 50 office and co‑chaired a global IP practice. She co‑founded the ChIPs Carolinas Chapter and has driven initiatives that strengthened pipelines across the profession.\nOutside of the law, she has served on many boards, including National Sports Media Association, Wake Forest University’s Face to Face, Salem Academy and College, NextNow for UNC School of Arts, and Brenner Children’s Hospital, among others.\nDanielle has first-chaired, led, and consulted in numerous litigations in multiple venues, including the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals; the United States International Trade Commission (ITC); the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); Federal District Courts in North Carolina (W.D.N.C., M.D.N.C., E.D.N.C.), Georgia (N.D. Ga.), California (N.D. Cal., C.D. Cal.), Texas (E.D. Tex., N.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex. including Waco), Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Colorado, New Jersey, New York; as well as arbitrations before the ICC and AAA. Partner Litigator of the Week for the antitrust trial brought by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, a case that reshaped the sport of premier stock car racing The American Lawyer, December 19, 2025 Litigator of the Week Runner-Up for securing a preliminary injunction against NASCAR in the monopolization case brought on behalf of Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin’s racing team, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports Inc. The American Lawyer, December 20, 2024 Litigator of the Week First Runner-Up for a defense verdict for U.S. Well Services LLC in a patent showdown with electric fracking rival Halliburton Energy Services Inc. Not only did jurors in Waco, Texas, find that U.S. Well Services did not infringe upon any of the three patents Halliburton asserted at trial, but they also found two of those patents invalid due to obviousness The American Lawyer, September 1, 2023 IAM Patent 1000 IAM, 2022–2025 Global Leader IAM, 2024–2025 Trade Secrets and Patents WIPR Leaders, 2025 “Key Lawyer,” Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025 Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation The Best Lawyers in America®, 2016–2026 Patent Litigation The Best Lawyers in America®, 2017-2026 “500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP \u0026amp; Patent Litigation Lawdragon, 2026 “500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” Lawdragon, 2025  “Women in Business Award”  Charlotte Business Journal, 2025 Women, Influence \u0026amp; Power in Law’s “Managing Partner of the Year” Corporate Counsel, 2024 North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society 2016-2018, 2020 Wake Forest University Wake Forest University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Georgia North Carolina Co-Founder and Board Member, ChIPs, Carolina Chapter, 2022- present Advisory Board, Wake Forest University’s Face to Face Speaker series, 2020-present Board Member, National Sports Media Association, 2017-2021 Board of Trustees, Forsyth Country Day School, 2015- 2021 Advisory Board, Brenner Children’s Hospital, 2003-2015","searchable_name":"Danielle Williams","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":448672,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2542,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Mills is a senior patent litigator at King \u0026amp; Spalding with more than twenty-five years of experience.\u0026nbsp; He has led many patent litigation and enforcement matters in various venues, including U.S. district courts, the United States International Trade Commission, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.\u0026nbsp; He has also been principal negotiator in several portfolio and patent licensing transactions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff\u0026rsquo;s Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice\u0026nbsp;spans a broad spectrum of technologies, including semiconductors, satellite imaging, automotive technologies, advanced polymer technologies, Internet technologies (financial service products and online gaming), medical devices, and consumer products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Patent Claim Construction One Year after \u003cem\u003eTeva\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; Navigating Uncertainty\u0026rdquo;\u003cem\u003e, \u003c/em\u003eKing \u0026amp; Spalding Intellectual Property Newsletter\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuick Reference Guide for New PTO Proceedings under the America Invents Act\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFederal Circuit Patent Law Update \u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSupreme Court and Federal Circuit Patent Law Update\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFederal Circuit Patent Law Update\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Willful Patent Infringement and Opinions of Counsel after \u003cem\u003eIn re Seagate Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; Association of Corporate Counsel America \u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Ethics, Discipline, Legal Malpractice and the IP Lawyer,\u0026rdquo; 43rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference, Plano, Texas\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Pre-Filing Considerations in Patent Litigation,\u0026rdquo; 17th Annual Intellectual Property Law Course, San Antonio, Texas\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has been frequently invited to speak to practitioners and industry groups in the U.S. and Europe on recent developments in U.S. patent law.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeffrey-mills","email":"jmills@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mills","nick_name":"Jeff","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Honorable Helen W. Nies, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","years_held":"0000-0000"}],"first_name":"Jeffrey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"David","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"President, Austin Intellectual Property Law Association (2008)","detail":""},{"title":"Chair, Licensing Executives Society, Central Texas Chapter (2005-2007)","detail":""}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Mills is a senior patent litigator at King \u0026amp; Spalding with more than twenty-five years of experience.\u0026nbsp; He has led many patent litigation and enforcement matters in various venues, including U.S. district courts, the United States International Trade Commission, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.\u0026nbsp; He has also been principal negotiator in several portfolio and patent licensing transactions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff\u0026rsquo;s Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice\u0026nbsp;spans a broad spectrum of technologies, including semiconductors, satellite imaging, automotive technologies, advanced polymer technologies, Internet technologies (financial service products and online gaming), medical devices, and consumer products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Patent Claim Construction One Year after \u003cem\u003eTeva\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; Navigating Uncertainty\u0026rdquo;\u003cem\u003e, \u003c/em\u003eKing \u0026amp; Spalding Intellectual Property Newsletter\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuick Reference Guide for New PTO Proceedings under the America Invents Act\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFederal Circuit Patent Law Update \u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSupreme Court and Federal Circuit Patent Law Update\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFederal Circuit Patent Law Update\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Willful Patent Infringement and Opinions of Counsel after \u003cem\u003eIn re Seagate Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; Association of Corporate Counsel America \u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Ethics, Discipline, Legal Malpractice and the IP Lawyer,\u0026rdquo; 43rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference, Plano, Texas\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Pre-Filing Considerations in Patent Litigation,\u0026rdquo; 17th Annual Intellectual Property Law Course, San Antonio, Texas\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has been frequently invited to speak to practitioners and industry groups in the U.S. and Europe on recent developments in U.S. patent law.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"President, Austin Intellectual Property Law Association (2008)","detail":""},{"title":"Chair, Licensing Executives Society, Central Texas Chapter (2005-2007)","detail":""}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4272}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T21:51:06.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T21:51:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Mills{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"President, Austin Intellectual Property Law Association (2008)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chair, Licensing Executives Society, Central Texas Chapter (2005-2007)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}Jeff Mills is a senior patent litigator at King \u0026amp; Spalding with more than twenty-five years of experience.  He has led many patent litigation and enforcement matters in various venues, including U.S. district courts, the United States International Trade Commission, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  He has also been principal negotiator in several portfolio and patent licensing transactions. \n\nJeff’s Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice spans a broad spectrum of technologies, including semiconductors, satellite imaging, automotive technologies, advanced polymer technologies, Internet technologies (financial service products and online gaming), medical devices, and consumer products.\nPublications\n\n“Patent Claim Construction One Year after Teva – Navigating Uncertainty”, King \u0026amp; Spalding Intellectual Property Newsletter\nQuick Reference Guide for New PTO Proceedings under the America Invents Act\nFederal Circuit Patent Law Update \nSupreme Court and Federal Circuit Patent Law Update\nFederal Circuit Patent Law Update\n“Willful Patent Infringement and Opinions of Counsel after In re Seagate Technology,” Association of Corporate Counsel America \n“Ethics, Discipline, Legal Malpractice and the IP Lawyer,” 43rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference, Plano, Texas\n“Pre-Filing Considerations in Patent Litigation,” 17th Annual Intellectual Property Law Course, San Antonio, Texas\n\nJeff has been frequently invited to speak to practitioners and industry groups in the U.S. and Europe on recent developments in U.S. patent law. Counsel President, Austin Intellectual Property Law Association (2008)  Chair, Licensing Executives Society, Central Texas Chapter (2005-2007)  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois California District of Columbia Illinois Texas USPTO Bar #35,954 Judicial Clerk, Honorable Helen W. Nies, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","searchable_name":"Jeffrey David Mills (Jeff)","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}],"extra_filter_label":"Section 337 Investigations"}}