Kevin J. Post
Kevin Post works extensively with high-technology and life science companies handling their complex patent disputes. He has litigated patent cases in nearly every significant patent jurisdiction, including the International Trade Commission, the District of Delaware, the Northern District of California, the Eastern District of Texas, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of companies in a variety of technical fields, including telecommunications, electronics, computer systems and software, network architecture and security, e-payments, e-commerce, imaging systems, GPS technology, process control systems, mechanical devices, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. Kevin has tried multiple cases involving standard-essential patents and RAND licensing issues, including breach of contract cases. From providing licensing support, patent portfolio analysis and due diligence to handling all aspects of trial preparation and trial, Kevin’s experience has touched on all phases of IP litigation.
- Co-lead counsel representing StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. in a series of district court actions involving the assertion of its patents relating to out-of-band authentication techniques and systems. Current pending cases include actions in the District of Massachusetts (Gemalto, Inc.; Vasco Data Security) and the Eastern District of Virginia (SecureAuth Corp.; Entrust, Inc.). Also representing StrikeForce in defense of one of its patents in inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
- Defending Samsung Electronics in multiple district court litigations regarding image sensors and imaging software.
- Defending the world’s leading consumer electronics company in district court litigation regarding electronic sale and transmission of music and video, and data storage and access systems.
- Defended Samsung Electronics in an ITC Investigation brought by InterDigital related to 3G and 4G standards wireless standards and RAND licensing.
- Defended the world’s leading consumer electronics company in district court litigation regarding computer operating systems.
- Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC. (W.D. Wash., W.D. Wis., S.D. Fla.); In the Matter of Certain Gaming and Entertainment Systems, Related Software, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-752): Represented Motorola in a multi-district dispute between Motorola and Microsoft involving patents directed to telecommunications standards, digital video coding technology, mobile browsing technology, digital set-top boxes, gaming technology, and smartphone features and functionality, among other technologies. The cases also involved contract-based claims directed to RAND licensing issues.
- Motorola, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd. (N.D. Tex.); In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs (U.S.I.T.C.): Represented Motorola in an ITC Investigation against RIM involving five patents relating to telecommunications standards, battery packs and smartphone features, as well as district court litigation involving patent claims and contract claims related to RAND licensing.
- Motorola, Inc. v. VTech Communications, Inc. (E.D. Tex.): Represented Motorola in a successfully concluded litigation involving six patents asserted against VTech relating to telecommunication products and features.
- NTP, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. (E.D. Va.): Represented Motorola in defense of an eight-patent patent infringement lawsuit related to wireless e-mail technology.
- Genetic Technologies Limited v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (D. Colo., N.D. Cal.): Represented Agilent in defense of litigation regarding DNA testing and analysis.
- Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. v. Control Systems International, Inc. (S.D. Tex.): Represented Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. in a two-patent cross-suit involving automated control systems for industrial processes.
- Co-author, “Internet of Things: Next Patent War Zone,” Bloomberg BNA’s Patent Trademark & Copyright Journal (January 11, 2018)
- Cited, “Federal Circuit Keeps Alice Patent Ruling in $533 Million Apple Suit,” Law360 (June 12, 2017)
- Co-author, “Comparing U.S. and EPO Approaches to Diagnostic Patents,” Bloomberg BNA’s World Intellectual Property Report (June 2017)
- Cited, “Full Federal Circuit Urged to Eye Alice Nix in $533 Million Apple Case,” Law360 (April 17, 2017)
- Cited, “Federal Circuit Kills 3 Patents in $533M Apple Case Under Alice,” Law360 (March 1, 2017)
- Cited, “Fed. Circ. Grants Stays To Apple, Samsung In Smartflash Case,” Law360 (July 10, 2015) (Subscription required)
- Cited as “Legal Lion,” “Law360's Weekly Verdict: Legal Lions & Lambs,” Law360 (July 9, 2015) (Subscription required)
- Cited, “Judge Tosses $533M Verdict Against Apple in Patent Row,” Law360 (July 7, 2015) (Subscription required)
- Cited, “Apple Dodges Potential $1.6B Award In Smartflash IP Suit,” Law360 (July 2, 2015) (Subscription required)
- Speaker, Managing IP PTAB Forum, “Identifying the Best Strategies for You to Deal with the Administrative Changes” (May 16, 2017)
- Presenter, “The Dollars, Cents and Due Diligence of Pharmaceutical Patent Life Cycle Management and Litigation Planning,” American Conference Institute’s (ACI) 11th Aannual “Paragraph IV Disputes” Conference, “The Dollars, Cents and Due Diligence of Pharmaceutical Patent Life Cycle Management and Litigation Planning” (April 24, 2017)
- Speaker, ACI Expert Forum on ITC Litigation & Enforcement, “Can Recent Rule Changes Facilitate Efficient Resolution of Section 337 Cases?” (February 22, 2017)
- Speaker, Ropes & Gray IP Master Class Financial Services Roundtable, “Post-Alice: Getting and Enforcing FinTech Patents” (April 28,2016)