Wab Kadaba is Chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Department. Mr. Kadaba concentrates his practice on litigation related to intellectual property as well as strategy and management of intellectual property and technology issues. Mr. Kadaba has considerable experience representing clients in patent, trademark and trade secret litigation matters, covering technologies as diverse as software, telecommunications, e-commerce, medical devices, footwear and chemical compositions. He is admitted to the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
Mr. Kadaba was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Intellectual Property Law in 2018 and the eight years immediately preceding. He was also named a 2014 "Atlanta Lawyer of the Year" in the area of Patent Law by The Best Lawyers in America®. Mr. Kadaba has been selected as a Georgia "Rising Star" for Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property Litigation in 2010 and the five years immediately preceding, a Georgia "Super Lawyer" in 2018 and the seven years prior, and a Top 100 Georgia "Super Lawyer" in 2018 and the six years prior by Super Lawyers magazine. He is listed in the 2017 and the nine years immediately preceding editions of Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business as a leading Georgia Intellectual Property lawyer. Mr. Kadaba was selected as one of the top 15 young Atlanta lawyers "On the Rise" by Fulton County Daily Report in 2007. He was named a top patent practitioner in 2017 and the five years immediately preceding by IAM Patent 1000 – The World's Leading Patent Practitioners. Mr. Kadaba was recognized as one of Georgia Trend's 2012 "Legal Elite" for Intellectual Property Law. He was named an "IP Star" in 2017 and the four years immediately preceding by Managing Intellectual Property magazine. He was recommended by Legal 500 US in 2016 in the areas of Patent Portfolio Management and Licensing and Patent Prosecution. Mr. Kadaba is a recipient of the North American South Asian Bar Association (NASABA) Cornerstone Award and was named to "Who's Who in Law and Accounting: The 100 Most Influential Individuals Who are Leading the Way in Metro Atlanta's Legal and Accounting Industries" by the Atlanta Business Chronicle. He speaks conversational Japanese and Hindi and has a working knowledge of Spanish.
Representing Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter involving multiple patents directed toward the UPnP standard, MOCA technology, and the Cable Labs Home Networking Standard. Preservation Technologies, LLC v. Netflix Inc., No. 8:11-cv-01860-DOC-JPR (C.D. Ca. filed Dec. 2, 2011).
The firm served as lead counsel for Genesco Inc. in defense of patent infringement allegations relating to an orthotic device. Plaintiffs asserted a multi-count complaint involving patent, trade secret, conversion, and unjust enrichment theories concerning shoe insert technology. We successfully secured and defended on appeal a summary judgment of non-infringement. Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc., 351 F. Supp.2d 320 (E.D. Pa. 2005), aff’d 440 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Successfully represented four major airlines in patent infringement case involving location and estimated time of arrival of vehicles. Although many of the defenses raised were common to all four clients, one airline had a unique system which was conducive to additional non-infringement defenses. We were able to successfully represent all four clients and provide them with the significant benefit of sharing costs associated with the defense.
The firm serves as lead counsel on behalf of Georgia-Pacific in a qui tam false marking suit filed by Belinda Brown in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Complaint alleged that Georgia-Pacific falsely marked its Quilted Northern Soft and Strong bath tissue product with expired patent numbers in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292. We filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to plead its claims, especially with respect to the intent to deceive element, with the particularity required under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court agreed and granted the Motion to Dismiss. Belinda Y. Brown v. Georgia Pacific Corporation, USDC, EDMO, Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-01005-RWS.
Serves as lead counsel in Inter Partes Review proceeding for Yelp and Twitter before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536 entitled System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers.
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case Number IPR2014-00092.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of patent owner in patent infringement litigation involving chemical parts washers for automotive parts. The dispute involved ownership issues between the inventor and his employer. The patents were found valid and infringed on pre-trial motions.
Serves as lead counsel in Inter Partes Review proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,985,912 entitled Dynamic Object Driven Database Manipulation and Mapping System Having a Simple Global Interface and an Optional Multiple User Need Only Caching System with Disable and Notify Features.
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case Number IPR2014-00117.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Intercontinental Hotels Corporation in defending a patent infringement case. We obtained summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The plaintiff has appealed the ruling. CyberFone Sys. LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., No. 11-00831 (D. Del. filed Sept. 15, 2011).
The firm served as lead counsel defending Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc. in a suit filed by Furnace Brook LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit claimed patent infringement stemming from our client’s use of on-line ordering systems. Furnace Brook sued thirteen defendants and initially settled with six of those parties. We successfully obtained a summary judgment verdict for our client, dismissing the infringement case against Thomasville under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Furnace Brook LLC v. Aeropostale Inc. et al., No. 1:09-cv-04310 (N.D. Ill filed July 17, 2009).
Serves as lead counsel in Inter Partes Review proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,103,600 entitled Displayable Presentation Page and SQL Searchable Relational Data Source Implementation of a System, Method and Software for Creating and Maintaining Distributed Transparent Persistence of Complex Data Objects and their Data Relationships.
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case Number IPR2014-00118.
Serves as lead counsel in Inter Partes Review proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,167,862 entitled Session Bean Implementation of a System, Method and Software for Creating or Maintaining Distributed Transparent Persistence of Complex Data Objects and their Data Relationships.
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case Number IPR2014-00119.
The firm represented adidas AG in a successful petition for inter partes review ("IPR") of U.S. Patent No. 7,347,011 assigned to Nike, Inc. (Case Number IPR2013-00067). In response, Nike canceled all issued claims in favor of proposed new claims. In 2014, the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board determined that all of the proposed new claims were invalid. In 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision in part, and has remanded to the Board to formally address evidence of secondary considerations.
Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action relating to forging of automobile parts by extrusion of molten aluminum. The technology at issue involved complex metallurgy and applied heat transfer in conjunction with the manufacturing process.
Successfully represented Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, Continental Airlines and Japan Air Lines in patent infringement case involving location and estimated time of arrival of vehicles. Although many of the defenses raised were common to all four clients, one airline had a unique system which was conducive to additional non-infringement defenses. We were able to successfully represent all four clients and provide them with the significant benefit of sharing costs associated with the defense. Arrival Star, Inc. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 02-2543 (N.D. Ga. filed Sept. 16, 2002).
Represents adidas in providing comprehensive and aggressive patent protection. The firm works intimately with in-house patent counsel and the inventors to understand the inventions and their importance in the company’s overall business strategy. We routinely conduct patentability and clearance searching to assist the client in avoiding potential patent infringement and to help us identify the truly novel features of our client’s inventions and focus prosecution on those features. Through these efforts, we provide strategic counsel to key personnel regarding strategies to protect their innovations and achieve corporate goals.
Insights View All
University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D. (1997)
Case Western Reserve University, M.S., Mechanical Engineering (1994)
Georgia Institute of Technology, B.S., Mechanical Engineering (1992)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (1999)
IndUS Entrepreneurs, Member
Japan America Society of Georgia, Member
Sigma Xi Scientific Research Honor Society, Member
State Bar of Georgia, Intellectual Property Section, Chair (2008-2009)
The Westminster Schools, Diversity Advisory Council, Member
The Westminster Schools, Alumni Association Governing Board, Member (2016-2017)
Leadership Atlanta, Class of 2012, Member
Fernbank Museum of Natural History, Corporate Leadership Council, Member
Woodruff Arts Center, Board of Trustees, 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.