Taylor Higgins Ludlam focuses her practice on patent infringement litigation, international trade commission investigations and complex commercial litigation in a wide variety of industries. Ms. Ludlam has assisted in the successful litigation of patents involving cable and telephony communications, wireless communications, and software-related systems in District Courts and before the International Trade Commission. She has also represented various companies in complex contract disputes, trademark infringement, and class action lawsuits.
Ms. Ludlam has significant courtroom and trial experience in patent and commercial litigation cases, including successfully trying patent litigation cases to a jury. She has experience with complex patent infringement litigations involving multi-district litigation and has practiced before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Ms. Ludlam also has extensive experience with patent and complex business litigation cases involving complex e-discovery issues.
In 2014, Ms. Ludlam was selected as a North Carolina “Rising Star” in Business Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine. In 2018, Ms. Ludlam was awarded the Women in Business Award from the Triangle Business Journal. In 2019, Ms. Ludlam was recognized in the NC Lawyers Weekly's 2019 Women of Justice.
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 for injunctive relief. Through ex parte reexamination proceedings, we invalidated the fifth patent. The district court denied Fujifilm’s attempt to undo the jury’s verdict, and the case settled on appeal. Fujifilm Corporation v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 3:12-cv-3587 (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2012).
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of CoxCom, Inc. in two suits brought by Rembrandt in the Eastern District of Texas and other districts on nine patents related to the technology involved in the delivery of cable services. We persuaded the judicial panel on multi-district litigation to consolidate, for pre-trial purposes, numerous proceedings and transfer the matter to the District of Delaware. A Markman order from the first case in the series was subsequently vacated by the transferee judge, thus limiting the plaintiffs to a single claim construction. Case pending. (Originally assigned to Judge Ward; transferred to Judge Davis). Rembrandt Techs., LP v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., No. 06-223 (E.D. Tex. filed June 1, 2006), In re Rembrandt Techs. LP Patent Litig., No. 07-01848 (D. Del. filed June 21, 2007).
Lead counsel on behalf of Cox Communications and EarthLink in a suit filed by Ronald A. Katz Licensing Technology in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit claims patent infringement stemming from our clients’ use of automated telephone processing systems. The action was consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other suits brought by Katz against various other defendants in the Central District of California, with Judge Klausner presiding over discovery and other pre-trial matters. Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, LLP v. Cox Commc'ns, No. 07-2299 (E.D. Tex. filed April 6, 2007); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., No. 07-01816 (E.D. Tex. filed July 7, 2008) and Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, LLP v. EarthLink, Inc., No. 07-2235, No. 07-2299 (E.D. Tex. filed April 9, 2007); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., No. 07-01816 (E.D. Tex. filed July 7, 2008).
Represented Cox Communications, Inc. and CSC Holdings, LLC in a patent infringement suit in the District of Delaware involving modem technology. The plaintiff alleged that providing voice-over-IP telephone calls infringed its patented technology and sued an entire industry for infringement of this patent. The dispute was resolved favorably. (Judge Stark). GTZM Tech. Ventures LTD v. Atlantic Broadband Fin., LLC et al., No. 1:11-cv-00790 (D. Del. filed Sept. 8, 2011).
Served as antitrust counsel to BellSouth in its acquisition by AT&T.
Represents Cox Communications, Inc. in a patent infringement suit filed by Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. in the Eastern District of Virginia. Obtained successful transfer out of the Eastern District of Virginia. The action was consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other suits brought by Bear Creek against various other defendants in the District of Delaware, with Judge Sleet presiding over discovery and other pre-trial matters. The plaintiff alleges that providing voice-over-IP technology infringes its patented technology and has brought suit across multiple industries for infringement of this patent. (Judge Sleet). Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. v. Cox Communications, Inc. et al., No. 1:2012cv00565 (D. Del. filed May 4, 2012).
Represented major oil company in complex commercial dispute and breach of contract actions.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Motorola Mobility, in a lawsuit involving allegations of patent infringement related to mobile phone data transfer. Motorola Mobility filed petitions for inter partes review for the asserted patents and moved to stay the proceedings. The Board instituted all of the IPRs and recently issued final decisions invalidating all of the patent claims challenged in two of the three IPRs. The Board concluded that the prior art cited by Motorola illustrated that the claimed inventions of the challenged patents were invalid. The Board has yet to issue final decisions in 2 additional related IPRs. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, Civ. No. 13-61358 (S.D. Fla. filed June 19, 2013).
Serves as counsel to national telecommunications company in this putative class action asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and related common law claims. The plaintiffs contend that our client impermissibly collected overhead and claims processing charges when billing excavators who damaged our client's underground cables.
Lead counsel representing GP Chemicals Equity LLC (GP) in an action alleging breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of the Lanham Act, and violations of Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act. We obtained summary judgment and the court entered judgment in GP’s favor on all claims asserted against it. Affirmed on appeal. Importers Service Corporation v. GP Chemicals Equity LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Civil Action File No. 1:07-cv-00745-JOF.
Defending AT&T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a “telecommunications device,” that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a “remote computerized database” using a “communications exchange,” and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC v. Apple, Inc., et al., No. 11-647 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 2, 2011).
Insights View All
University of North Carolina J.D. (2004) with honors
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill B.A. (2001) Political Science, with distinction
North Carolina (2011)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Board of Directors for Habitat for Humanity, Orange County
Executive Committee for Habitat for Humanity, Orange County
Empty Stocking Fund, Volunteer
Special Olympics, Volunteer
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.