Roger Cook is a trial lawyer focusing on high-tech patent infringement litigation from trial through appeal, with first chair trial experience since 1982.
Mr. Cook has been recognized by his peers for litigation excellence. Recently, he received a 2015 California Lawyer Attorney of the Year award for intellectual property based on achievement in Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corp. patent litigation (see Client Milestones, below). He has been rated AV Preeminent® by Martindale-Hubbell since 1978.* He was co-leader of the Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP litigation practice, and a member of its Diversity Committee.
Mr. Cook’s track record includes winning nearly all (16 of 19) of his appellate decisions at the Federal Circuit.**
His cases have involved semiconductor devices and processes, microprocessors, computers, computer memory including DRAMs, flash memory, and antifuse; integrated circuits, power transistors, IGBTs, power MOSFETs, Java accelerators, disk drives and computer graphics; lasers; digital and analog electrical circuitry, monoclonal antibodies, highway construction equipment, lighting products, aerospace, agricultural products and telecommunications.
He is also Adjunct Professor for Intellectual Property/Antitrust, University of San Francisco Law School (2004 to present), and at University of California Hastings School of Law (2009, 2012).
*AV®, BV®, AV Preeminent® and BV Distinguished® are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies.
**Based on WestlawTM search in Federal Circuit database for AT(Roger /4 Cook). Past performance no guarantee of future success.
In 2015, persuaded the Northern District of California (J. Illston) to award $5.5 million attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing patent infringement defendant, Sidense. Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corp., 2015 WL 1065883.
In 2014, persuaded the Federal Circuit to make it easier for a prevailing patent infringement defendant to recover its attorney fees from the patent owner, and persuaded Chief Judge Rader to sharply criticize the rigid governing Brooks Furniture standard. Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corp., 738 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Four months later, the U.S. Supreme Court favorably cited Kilopass in overruling Brooks Furniture. Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1739, 1754 at n. 4 (2014). For this achievement, received a 2015 California Lawyer Attorney of the Year award for intellectual property.
In 2013, defeated Kilopass Technology, Inc.'s claims against Sidense Corp. for alleged infringement of Kilopass' patents on single transistor, one-time-programmable, non-volatile memory; and for alleged defamation, interference, false advertising and unfair competition. Affirmed by the Federal Circuit on April 23, 2013. 501 Fed. Appx. 980, 2013 WL 1442509.
In 2008, defeated International Rectifier's patent for alleged invention of the power MOSFET. International Rectifier v. IXYS, 515 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008). International Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 361 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir. 2004); 515 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Prior to this decision, the power transistor segment of the semiconductor industry had paid International Rectifier hundreds of millions of royalty dollars for licenses under this patent. Ultimately, IXYS persuaded the Federal Circuit and District Court to order International Rectifier to pay IXYS a seven figure award of attorneys’ fees. Int'l Rectifier Corp. v. Samsung, 361 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 424 F.3d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 238 Fed. Appx. 601.
In 1997, defeated Harris Corporation’s patent for alleged invention of the insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT). Harris Corporation v. IXYS, 114 F 3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In 1993, successfully concluded Grid and Tandy v. Texas Instruments by demonstrating that Texas Instruments’ patent for alleged invention of the microprocessor had been copied from Intel.
In 1985, won jury verdict of patent infringement for Gordon Gould, inventor of the laser, in Gould v. Cooper LaserSonics. Mr. Gould’s tribulations and ultimate vindication (including the subject case) have been chronicled in Laser: The Inventor, the Nobel Laureate, and the Thirty-Year Patent War, by Nick Taylor, Simon & Schuster, NYC 2000.
In 1983, won jury verdict of patent infringement and multi-million dollar damages award for Bio-Rad Corp. against Nicolet Instrument Corp., including a record 33% reasonable royalty. This was the first jury verdict reviewed by the newly established United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, affirmed on all counts. 739 F2d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
*Past successes are no guarantee of future success.
University of Michigan School of Law, J.D. (1964)
Ohio Wesleyan University, B.A., Physics and Mathematics (1961)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
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 Federal Circuit
American Bar Association, Member
American Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
Federal Circuit Bar Association, Member
San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.