Suite 904, Building E, Chamtime Plaza, No. 6, Lane 2889, Jinke Road, Pudong New District, Shanghai China 201203
1400 Wewatta Street Suite 600, Denver, CO USA 80202
Kris Reed serves as Managing Partner of Kilpatrick Townsend in China. Mr. Reed focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and counseling. Mr. Reed works with clients in such diverse fields as electronics, semiconductor manufacturing and development, software, telecommunications, transportation, entertainment, retail and consumer goods, and financial transactions. Mr. Reed has extensive experience in all aspects of federal district court litigation and International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations and trials. Mr. Reed is also certified as a National Advisory Expert in China for Overseas Intellectual Property Dispute Settlement.
As a registered patent attorney, Mr. Reed also specializes in post-grant proceedings before the United States Patent Office, having served as lead counsel in over 30 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Mr. Reed was named as a top litigator in 2020 by IAM Patent 1000 – The World's Leading Patent Practitioners. He was recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® for Patent Litigation in 2017 and 2018, and for both Patent Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation in 2019, 2020 and 2021. He was recognized as a Colorado “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation in 2019 and 2020, having been previously named a Colorado “Rising Star” six times by Super Lawyers magazine. And Mr. Reed was named a 2018 "Top Litigator" by Law Week Colorado.
Mr. Reed also represents foreign parents, often on a pro bono basis, in international child abduction cases under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Mr. Reed has served as lead counsel in multiple trials resulting in the successful return of illegally retained children to their home countries.
Before joining the firm, Mr. Reed completed a federal clerkship with the Honorable Robert C. Jones of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
Prior to joining the legal profession, Mr. Reed worked as a software engineer for one of the nation’s largest technology companies, developing cutting-edge design automation tools for VLSI microprocessor design. Mr. Reed also worked as a researcher for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, conducting research into next-generation wireless standards and measurement techniques.
Represented LSI Corporation and argued for all appellees in a landmark Federal Circuit appeal of an IPR decision filed by the University of Minnesota, resulting in a precedential opinion holding that state sovereign immunity does not apply in inter partes review proceedings before the USPTO. This was named one of the “Top Patent Cases of 2019” by Law360. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. LSI Corp., 926 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Defended Broadcom Inc. and its six downstream customers Technicolor, HTC, Comcast, Arista, NETGEAR, and ARRIS in a Section 337 Investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission brought by Tessera Technologies related to semiconductor chip packaging technology. In re Certain Semiconductor Devices, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1010.
Represented complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC in a Section 337 Investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission involving video decoder and wireless local area network patents. Following trial, the ALJ determined that the Commission should enter an exclusion order against the respondent’s products. In re Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-837.
Defended LSI Corporation and Seagate Technology in a Section 337 Investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission brought by Rambus involving semiconductor memory technology. Following trial, the ALJ determined that all asserted Rambus patents were invalid and that no violation of Section 337 occurred. In re Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-753.
Represented complainant LSI Corporation, a global semiconductor technology company, in a Section 337 Investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission involving numerous participants in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. In re Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing the Same, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-648.
Defended Chicago Transit Authority and related vendor companies in a patent infringement litigation dealing with contactless credit card technology. Obtained an order invalidating four of the five patents-at-issue before trial, and achieved dismissal with prejudice of the last patent following the claim construction hearing. Judgment affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. Smart Systems Innovations LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, et al., No. 14-cv-08053 (N.D. Ill.).
Defended Starbucks, Seattle’s Best Coffee, Circuit City, Williams-Sonoma, and Pottery Barn in a patent infringement litigation regarding stored value card transactions. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on all claims. Judgment affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. Realsource, Inc. v. Starbucks, et al., No. 1-771 (W.D. Tex.).
Defended Genius Electronic Optical Co., a world leader in the manufacture and sale of optical lenses, against claims of patent infringement. Obtained summary judgment on over 99% of the plaintiff’s claims. Judgment affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. Largan Precision Co. v. Genius Electronic Optical Co., No. 13-cv-02502 (N.D. Cal.).
Represented defendant Pulse Engineering in a jury trial resulting in a verdict of only $1.5M despite a claim for over $30M in damages. The case later reached the Supreme Court. Halo Mfg. v. Pulse Engineering, No. 07-cv-00331 (D. Nev.).
Represented Patent Owner Hunter Douglas Inc. in eight IPR proceedings filed against four patents asserted by Hunter Douglas in litigation against a competitor. Successfully argued that six of the IPR trials should not be instituted, and limited the two instituted IPR trials to just three claims total. U.S. Patent Office Nos. IPR2014-00276, IPR2014-00282, IPR2014-00283, IPR2014-00286, IPR2014-01173, IPR2014-01174, IPR2014-01175, and IPR2014-01176.
Defended Sprint and Nextel in a patent litigation in Las Vegas involving “push-to-talk” walkie-talkie cell phones. Obtained a favorable settlement on the night before trial. 2-Way Computing, Inc. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., No. 11-cv-00012 (D. Nev.).
Defended Mothers Lounge, a leading manufacturer and seller of premium children’s products, against claims of patent infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition, resulting in all claims being dismissed with prejudice. Bebe au Lait LLC v. Mothers Lounge LLC, et al., No. 13-cv-3035 (N.D. Cal.).
Represented plaintiff Pulse Engineering, Inc. in a patent infringement litigation against a competitor manufacture of alarm system components. Obtained favorable settlement for Pulse, resulting in the defendant leaving the specific industry. Pulse Engineering, Inc. v. Mascon, Inc., No. 08-cv-0595 (S.D. Cal.).
Defended Mothers Lounge, a leading manufacturer and seller of premium children’s products, against claims of trademark infringement, including obtaining denial of the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction request following an evidentiary hearing. Rufflebutts, Inc. v. Mothers Lounge LLC, et al., No. 13-cv-3035 (D. Utah).
Successfully represented an Australian father in proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Obtained a verdict ordering return of the children to Australia following a trial on the merits, and ordering the defendant mother to pay all of the father’s attorney’s fees and costs. In re the Application of Bradley Reed Warren v. Emily Rebecca Ryan, 15-cv-00667 (D. Colo. filed March 31, 2015).
Successfully represented a New Zealand father pro bono in proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Obtained a verdict ordering return of the child to New Zealand following a trial on the merits. In re the Application of Anthony Leigh Stead v. Davina Menduno, 14-cv-01400 (D. Colo. filed May 19, 2014).
Successfully represented a Mexican mother pro bono in proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Obtained a verdict ordering return of the child to Mexico following a trial on the merits. In re the Application of Raquel Fabiola Marquez Avila v. Rolando Contreras Gallegos, 14-cv-00230 (D. Colo. filed January 27, 2014).
Insights View All
Stanford Law School, J.D. (2004) Stanford Technology Law Review, Editor-in-Chief
University of Colorado, B.S., Electrical and Computer Engineering (2000) with high distinction, graduated first in the College of Engineering and Applied Science
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern 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 District of Colorado
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
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.