Kenneth B. Herman

Retired Partner

herman-kenneth-b
  • AB (American History), magna cum laude, Harvard College, 1966
  • JD, Harvard Law School, 1969

Qualifications

  • New York, 1971
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Court Admissions

  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
  • American Bar Association 
  • New York State Bar Association  
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association 
  • International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association
  • The Best Lawyers in America 
  • New York Super Lawyers
  • Who's Who in America 
  • Euromoney's Guide to the World's Leading Patent Law Experts

Kenneth B. Herman

Retired Partner

Ken has been litigating patents and other intellectual property for over 40 years – first with Fish & Neave and then with Ropes & Gray after the two firms merged. His trials have led to over $1,000,000,000 in collected damage awards for his clients. He has litigated technologies as diverse as optical waveguide fibers, sailboat winches, recombinant DNA and treatment for age related macular degeneration. Ken’s liberal arts background coupled with his pre-medical courses enables him to communicate complex technological issues effectively to lay judges and juries. Ken has litigated in state courts, federal courts and the International Trade Commission. He has also argued numerous appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Ken tried his first lawsuits while in law school as an intern for the local district attorney, and he has been trying cases ever since. 

Experience

  • MEEI v. QLT Phototherapeutics: Trade Secrets, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices relating to a drug for the treatment of age related macular degeneration. Jury verdict for MEEI judgment affirmed on appeal. QLT has paid MEEI more than $125 million dollars and will continue to pay MEEI royalties on all future worldwide sales of the product, Visudyne®.  
  • Polaroid v. Kodak: bench trial judgment in favor of Polaroid. Kodak was held to infringe Polaroid patents on instant camera and instant film. Judgment affirmed on appeal. Kodak was permanently enjoined.  
  • Forest and ONY v. Abbott: represented Forest and ONY in a declaratory judgment action they brought against Abbott. Following a three month jury trial, Forest and ONY were held not to infringe patents relating to lung surfactant for premature babies, and Abbott was also held to be equitably estopped from asserting patents against them. Judgment affirmed on appeal.  
  • Case v. BASF: defended BASF against claim that it infringed two patents relating to polyurethane foam for insulation. Bench trial judgment that BASF did not infringe. Judgment affirmed on appeal.  
  • Symbol v. Lemelson: represented barcode and machine vision companies in a declaratory judgment action against Lemelson. Bench trial judgment of noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability of Lemelson patents. Judgment affirmed on appeal.  
  • Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. John Rogers: represented Hoechst Diafoil in South Carolina state court. Jury verdict that Rogers had misappropriated Hoechst trade secrets relating to coating technologies, and injunction against further misappropriation.  
  • In re Certain Optical Waveguide Fibers: represented Corning Glass Works in International Trade Commission investigation of infringement of Corning patents by Sumitomo. Corning patents found valid and infringed.

Publications

  • David S. Chun, Kenneth B. Herman, and Diana Santos, "ITC has become a more attractive forum for nonpracticing entities,"The National Law Journal (May 2011) 
  • “ITC has become a more attractive forum for nonpracticing entities,” National Law Journal (May 9, 2011) 
  • “Faster Regulatory Path for Follow-on Biologics is a Win for Pharma,” Pharma Magazine (September/October 2010)