Steve Moore focuses his practice on patent infringement litigation in a wide variety of industries. Mr. Moore both defends companies accused of patent infringement and represents patent owners harmed by a competitor’s infringement in pursuing patent and related claims. Mr. Moore also has experience in successfully coordinating global patent litigation, resulting in favorable rulings for his clients both in the U.S. and abroad. Mr. Moore further has experience in trade dress claims and commercial litigation matters.
Mr. Moore has extensive courtroom experience in patent and commercial litigation cases, including trying numerous patent and commercial litigation cases to a jury. Mr. Moore’s jury trial experience includes handling several multi-week multi-patent cases in which juries have returned verdicts of non-infringement and invalidity for his clients. Mr. Moore further has argued at and examined witnesses in numerous Markman hearings, after which courts issued claim construction rulings that have caused cases to resolve favorably for his clients. Mr. Moore has also argued before the Federal Circuit on several occasions, including before the en banc Federal Circuit.
Mr. Moore was listed in 2018 by The Best Lawyers in America® for Intellectual Property Litigation. He was recognized as a "Super Lawyer" in Intellectual Property Litigation in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 by Super Lawyers magazine. Mr. Moore was recognized as a 2016 and 2017 "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property magazine. He was named a top patent practitioner in 2016 and 2017 by IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners. Mr. Moore is listed in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 editions of Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business for Intellectual Property Law. He was named to The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers for Patents in 2013 and 2014 and The International Who's Who of Patent Lawyers in 2013.
Barry W. Thomas v. Motorola, Inc.; Barry W. Thomas v. Cingular Wireless LLC, et al.; Barry W. Thomas v. Cox Communications, Inc., et al.; Thomas v. Adelphia Communications Corp., et al.; Thomas v. Alltel, et al.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of a number of defendants, including Motorola, AT&T, and Cox Communications in two parallel patent infringement actions in the Western District of North Carolina and the Eastern District of Texas regarding technology involving wireless telephone handset equipment, and digital cable or satellite set-top boxes. After a favorable claim construction ruling for our clients in the North Carolina matter, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss its claims for infringement with prejudice in both North Carolina and Texas.
Thomas v. Motorola, Inc., No. 05-00493 (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 28, 2005); Thomas v. Cingular Wireless LLC, et al., No. 05-00495 (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 28, 2005); Thomas v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., et al., No. 07-0231 (E.D. Tex. filed June 6, 2007); Thomas v. Adelphia Commc'ns Corp., et al., No. 05-00497 (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 28, 2005); Thomas v. Alltel, et al., No. 05-0506 (W.D.N.C. filed Dec. 6, 2005).
Fort James Corp. & Fort James Operating Co. v. J.H. McNairn, Ltd., et al.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Georgia-Pacific LLC’s subsidiaries in a patent infringement suit against two competitors in the Northern District of Georgia involving composite food wrap products. Following a favorable Markman ruling in which the court adopted our clients’ claim construction arguments, the parties reached a settlement involving cash payment and an ongoing royalty-bearing license. Fort James Corp. & Fort James Operating Co. v. J.H. McNairn, Ltd., et al., No. 04-3000 (N.D. Ga. filed Oct. 14, 2004).
Fujifilm Corporation v. Motorola Mobility LLC
We defended Motorola against Fujifilm's assertion of five patents relating to digital cameras and the transmission of files through a cell phone. After summary judgment and a two week jury trial in San Francisco, Motorola prevailed on four of the five patents (proving two of the patents invalid and not infringed, one patent not infringed, and one patent invalid), and excluded willful infringement or injunctive relief. Through ex parte reexamination proceedings, Kilpatrick Townsend invalidated the fifth patent. Fujifilm Corporation v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 3:12-cv-3587 (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2012).
McKesson Info. Solutions v. Epic Sys. Corp.
The firm served as lead counsel in the representation of Epic Systems Corporation, a leading Wisconsin-based health care software company, against claims of patent infringement in a suit involving Internet-based doctor-patient communications software. The district court held that Epic and its health care provider customers did not and could not infringe the patent. The case settled while on appeal. McKesson Info. Solutions v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 06-2965 (N.D. Ga. filed Dec. 6, 2006), No. 2010-1291 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2011).
Inter partes review challenge for Motorola Mobility
Represented Motorola Mobility in an inter partes review challenge of U.S. Patent No. 7,516,484 relating to a reader adapted for a portable computer. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancelled all claims challenged (as anticipated by prior act).
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board Case Number IPR2013-00010.
Patent litigation for provider of automatic order fulfillment systems
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of a provider of automatic order fulfillment systems in a patent infringement suit brought by a pharmacy automation company in the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiff accused our client of infringing a patent related to automated prescription filling systems. Summary judgment was granted in favor of our client and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Intellectual Ventures v. Motorola Mobility LLC
Defending Motorola Mobility LLC in the District of Delaware. Intellectual Ventures filed a patent infringement action against Motorola accusing certain smartphones and tablets of infringing six different patents directed toward (1) back-lit LCD screens, (2) distributing software updates, (3) transporting content to mobile devices, (4) portable computer/docking stations, (5) allocation of wireless bandwidth, and (6) file transfer systems. (Judge Robinson).
Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, Civ. No. 11-908 (D. Del. filed Oct. 6, 2011).
Molnlycke Health Care Group AB v. Ossur & Medline
Served as lead counsel on behalf of Molnlycke Health Care Group AB in a patent infringement suit against two competitors in the Northern District of Georgia involving silicone-based wound dressings. The court entered a favorable claim construction ruling for our clients, and the case settled while summary judgment motions were pending after the manufacturer of the accused products removed them from the U.S. marketplace.
Molnlycke Health Care Group AB v. Ossur & Medline, No. 06-1027 (N.D. Ga. filed Apr. 28, 2006).
EON Corp IP Holdings LLC v. Sensus USA Inc, Motorola Mobility et. al.
Kilpatrick Townsend was successful on behalf of Motorola Mobility in winning summary judgment against EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC in the Northern District of California. In a strongly-worded opinion, the Court found that EON had presented no admissible evidence to defend against summary judgment, and further that its theories both flatly contradicted positions EON had taken earlier in the litigation as well as the constructions in the Court’s Markman Order. On March 6, 2015, two days after oral argument, the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed.
ComCam International, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.
We represented AT&T against allegations that AT&T infringed patents related to Internet-based security, fire and emergency identification and communication system. After claim construction briefing, ComCam accepted a settlement that was very favourable to AT&T.
ComCam International, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:13-cv-00795 (E.D. Tex. filed Oct. 7, 2013). PTAB Case Number IPR2015-00086.
Effingo Wireless Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC
We represented Motorola Mobility in defending patent infringement claims related to wireless earpiece technology in the Western District of Texas. After winning summary judgment on certain of the claims and forcing plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of others before trial, we presented a defense that led the jury to return a verdict of non-infringement and invalidity against the remaining claims that were at issue. Effingo Wireless, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 5:11-cv-00649 (W.D. Tex.) We also invalidated the patent in a re-examination proceeding.
Milliken & Company v. Interface, Inc., et al.
We represented Interface Inc., a leading manufacturer of carpet tile, in patent litigation filed by one of its largest competitors alleging hundreds of millions of dollars in damages as a result of infringement of two patents. After a three-week jury trial, the jury took less than one hour to find that the competitor's patents were invalid and that Interface did not infringe them. During the hearing on inequitable conduct issues, Interface reached a confidential settlement with the competitor resolving these issues as well as resolving Interface's counterclaims for infringement of two of its own patents.
EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC
On March 5, 2014, Kilpatrick Townsend was successful on behalf of Motorola Mobility in winning summary judgment against EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC less than three weeks before trial, in a case that had been pending in the District of Delaware for nearly three and one-half years. The court’s grant of summary judgment was decided on the relatively uncommon ground of invalidity by indefiniteness, and entirely invalidated EON’s patent, ending the case at the district court. On May 6, 2015, the Federal Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, affirmed summary judgment granted by the District of Delaware.
EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. FLO TV Inc., No. 10-812-RGA, 2014 WL 906182 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2014).
Racing Optics v. Aevoe
Representing plaintiff-patentee Racing Optics in patent infringement action against competitor Aevoe and its Moshi-brand touch screen protectors in D. Nevada. Argued Markman hearing in October 2016, with trial expected in November 2017, with related actions before the USPTO.
Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation
Successfully defended patent infringement case in the Northern District of California for client Oracle against Thought, Inc. involving seven patents for object-to-relational mapping technology. Over a three-year period, we defeated a claim for $130 million dollars in damages by (1) invalidating three patents in IPR proceedings; (2) obtaining voluntarily dismissals of three more patents; and (3) obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement of the final patent.
Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, No. 3:12-cv-05601-LB (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 31, 2012)
Patent infringement litigation for Kennametal Inc.
Representation of Kennametal Inc., a $2 billion per year NYSE company, in a patent litigation action that its biggest global competitor filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, alleging that Kennametal infringed certain metal cutting tool patents. We successfully transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania – Kennametal's home jurisdiction – pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). We forced a voluntary dismissal of one of the two patents. We then obtained a favorable claim construction ruling in which the remaining patent was found invalid for indefiniteness. The parties later entered an agreement resolving their disputes in this action and other related actions. Also represented Kennametal in a patent litigation matter in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that Kennametal’s largest global competitor and related entities infringe claims of two patents owned by Kennametal. We obtained an agreement for one entity to cease infringing one of the patents. The parties were still litigating the other patent, which related to metal cutting tools, at the time of settlement. Also served as global coordinating counsel in a patent litigation action that Sandvik filed in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, United Kingdom. After a bench trial, the Court found Sandvik's patent invalid for indefiniteness, lack of enablement, and obviousness. Sandvik Intellectual Prop. AB v. Kennametal Inc., No. 09-0163 (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 27, 2009); Sandvik Intellectual Prop. AB, v. Kennametal Inc., No. 10-654 (W.D. Pa. filed May 13, 2010); Kennametal Inc. v. Sandvik, Inc. d/b/a Sandvik Coromant Co., et al., No. 09-cv-00857, (W.D. Pa. filed June 29, 2009); Sandvik Intellectual Property AB, Claimant and Kennametal UK Limited, Kennametal Inc., Kennametal Europe GMBH, Defendants; Claim No. HC 10 C02090, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court.
Insights View All
Duke University School of Law, J.D. (1996) magna cum laude
Duke University, A.B., Economics (1993) cum laude
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
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 Texas
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia - Richard C. Freeman
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina - Alexander B. Denson
Georgia State Bar Association, Member
North Carolina State Bar, Member
Alaska Law Review, Former Executive Editor
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.