Steve Gardner concentrates his practice on intellectual-property disputes, counseling, and transactions. He is a registered patent attorney. He has practiced for more than 20 years and was co-chair of the firm's 100+ attorney national patent-litigation group from 2004 until 2013.
Mr. Gardner has represented companies in more than 90 lawsuits in the federal courts of California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Virginia. He has litigated and analyzed patents in a wide range of technologies, including software, computer hardware, medical devices, chemical compositions, Internet and e-commerce systems, electronics, manufacturing systems, mechanical devices, optics, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications. His litigation experience includes obtaining a preliminary injunction in a patent case and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in both inter partes reviews and covered business-method reviews.
Mr. Gardner also regularly handles counseling and transactional matters relating to intellectual property, including providing strategic analysis and advice regarding trends relative to intellectual property in the client's field; negotiating agreements relative to intellectual property, such as patent licenses and software licenses; establishing patent programs and committees; handling trade-secret misappropriation; analyzing patents held by competitors; engaging in intellectual property due diligence in evaluating potential acquisitions; conducting freedom to practice analysis; providing written opinions; patent-portfolio management; analyzing and negotiating indemnification; pre-litigation advice; managing patent prosecution; and serving as general intellectual-property counsel. He has spoken on intellectual property and other topics at seminars in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Detroit, Durham, Houston, New York, Palo Alto, Philadelphia, Raleigh, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Washington, and Winston-Salem.
Mr. Gardner has been elected for many years to Business North Carolina magazine's "Legal Elite" List as one of the top patent attorneys in North Carolina based on a survey of all members of the North Carolina bar. He is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Intellectual Property Law. He is one of only six North Carolina lawyers listed as a #1 band attorney in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business for Intellectual Property. Mr. Gardner was recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property magazine. Mr. Gardner is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Gardner served as a law clerk to the Honorable Alvin A. Schall, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, D.C., 1995-1996, and to the Honorable Frank W. Bullock Jr., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, 1994-1995.
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure's standards and policies.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of a transportation services company in a patent infringement suit regarding software for managing transportation logistics, and obtained a favorable settlement early in the litigation.
Served as lead counsel on behalf of Mrs. Smith's Bakeries, a subsidiary of Flowers Foods, a leading producer of packaged bakery foods, in a patent suit by Gardner Pie Co., an Ohio producer of bakery foods. The technology involved related to baked goods manufacturing systems. We filed a motion to dismiss in the Ohio district court and contemporaneously filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court in Georgia. The decision on the motion to dismiss was appealed to the Federal Circuit, but the parties settled the case before oral argument. Gardner Pie Co. v. Mrs. Smith's Bakeries, Inc., No. 01-1758 (N.D. Ohio filed July 19, 2001).
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Lotus Technologies in a lawsuit regarding allegations of patent infringement related to hearing aid technology. The matter was settled on confidential terms. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC v. Lotus Techs., LLC, No. 05-376 (E.D. Tex. filed Aug. 28, 2005). (Judge Schell).
The firm served as lead counsel for two Japanese manufacturing companies and their U.S. distributor in patent litigation against a global carpet-manufacturing equipment company. The technology at issue related to carpet manufacturing systems. A settlement favorable to the client was achieved, on confidential terms.
Defended Klaussner Furniture Industries, one of the largest furniture manufacturers in the world, in a design patent suit brought by Natuzzi. The designs involved related to furniture. Industrie Natuzzi S.p.A. v. Klaussner Furniture Indus., Inc., No. 02-00643 (M.D.N.C. filed Aug. 6, 2002).
The firm served as local counsel for adidas International Marketing B.V. in a patent infringement action filed by Akeva L.L.C. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief for adidas's alleged infringement of two patents owned by Akeva. Discovery in the case was completed. The parties submitted briefs regarding claim construction and filed motions for summary judgment. After the District Court issued its ruling on claim construction and Akeva conceded non-infringement, the Court entered a final order and judgment finding that adidas did not infringe any of the claims of the patents asserted by Akeva. On November 13, 2006, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of adidas. Akeva L.L.C. v. adidas Salomon AG, No. 03-1207 (M.D.N.C. filed Dec. 19, 2003).
Served as lead counsel on behalf of Banner Pharmacaps Inc. in a lawsuit alleging that by filing a New Drug Application (NDA) with the United States Food and Drug Administration, the defendants infringed Banner’s patent. The case is currently stayed in the court pending resolution of issues before the Food and Drug Administration. Banner Pharmacaps Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., No. 05-0346 (M.D.N.C. filed April 18, 2005).
Served as lead counsel on behalf of Banner Pharmacaps Inc. in a patent infringement suit against Perrigo. Banner filed the complaint alleging that, by making, using, offering for sale and selling its film-enrobed unitary-core tablets, each defendant infringed Banner's patent. The parties entered a voluntary settlement agreement to resolve the case prior to trial in which the defendants admitted the validity and infringement of the patent. Banner Pharmacaps Inc. v. Perrigo Co., No.04-0492 (M.D.N.C. filed May 28, 2004).
Represented Reisenweaver Communications Inc. in a patent action seeking a declaratory judgment that a patent owned by Econo-Comm Inc. was invalid and not infringed by Reisenweaver. Reisenweaver Commc'ns, Inc. v. Econo-Comm, Inc., No. 00-690 (M.D.N.C. filed July 20, 2000).
Defended Cerious Software in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas involving software for image management. The suit was resolved by settlement. (Judge Folsom). Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, Inc., No. 01-344 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 28, 2001).
Represented a furniture manufacturer in a furniture patent suit filed against the company in the Middle District of North Carolina. We also assisted in a related suit that went to trial in Mississippi. Shortly after a successful result in the Mississippi trial, the North Carolina action settled.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of three parties, Allscripts LLC (f/k/a Misys Healthcare Systems), Payerpath Inc. and Sudaco Inc. in an action for patent infringement pending in the Middle District of Florida. The technology at issue related to an Internet facilitated billing, data processing and communications system. During mediation, we successfully negotiated a favorable settlement with Billingnetwork Patent Inc., and Billingnetwork subsequently dismissed its claims with prejudice. Billingnetwork Patent, Inc. v. Misys Healthcare Sys., LLC, No. 08-00261 (M.D. Fla. filed Feb. 2, 2008).
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of one of the largest apparel companies in the world and obtained a U.S. patent for apparel packaging that was infringed by a competitor and its customers, several national retailers. Prior to issuance of the patent, we notified the competitor that it would be infringing the patent when it issued. We filed suit in federal court in the Middle District of North Carolina on the day the patent issued. The case settled relatively quickly, resulting in the competitor removing thousands of infringing packages from store shelves across the country and a payment to our client to help cover the costs for enforcing the patent.
The firm served as lead counsel in the Southern District of Illinois on behalf of JELD-WEN, Inc., a leading developer and manufacturer of windows and doors, in a case in which Edge Seal Technologies, Inc. (n/k/a INTIGRAL, Inc.), a window manufacturer, accused JELD-WEN of infringing its patent related to methods of manufacturing insulated glass units. The case settled early in discovery. Edge Seal Techs., Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., No. 01-02256 (C.D. Ill. filed Oct. 16, 2001)
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of a manufacturer of orthopedic apparatus in a patent infringement matter brought by its competitor company involving ankle braces.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Dotcast in a suit in the Northern District of Georgia to recover patent rights in the hands of a licensee who failed to make payments. After proceedings in District Court and in bankruptcy proceedings, a settlement
Insights View All
Wake Forest University, J.D. (1994) with honors
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, M.S., Electrical Engineering
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, B.S., Electrical Engineering Phi Kappa Phi, Tau Beta Pi
North Carolina (1994)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Alvin A. Schall (Aug 1995-Aug 1996)
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina - Frank W. Bullock, Jr. (Aug 1994-Aug 1995)
Wake Forest Law Review, Editor-in-Chief (1993-1994)
ABA Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter, Editor-in-Chief (2007-present)
ABA Open Source Software Sub-Committee, Co-Chair (2009-2012)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Member (1988-present)
The Children's Museum of Winston-Salem, Board Member (2005-2010)
UNC Charlotte, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Board of Advisors (2005-2013)
William G. White YMCA, Board Member (2015-present)
Arts Board of Mt. Tabor High School, Treasurer (2015-present)
Bethesda Center for the Homeless, Board Member, 2001-2003
Wake Forest University School of Law, Alumni Board Member
NC Bar Association Intellectual Property Section, Chair, 2006-2007
Member, Teacher, Deacon (2007-2011), Search Committee Member, South Fork Church of Christ, 1992–2011 and 2013-present
Adjunct Professor, Wake Forest University School of Law, 2000-2006
Adjunct Professor, UNC Charlotte Graduate School (Engineering Management), 2001-2008
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.