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 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.
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 numerous inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
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.
Mr. Reed was recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® for Patent Litigation in 2017 and 2018. He has been selected six times as a Rising Star by Colorado Super Lawyers (2010 through 2015). Mr. Reed also was named a top patent practitioner in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 by IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners. He is a former Chair of the Denver Bar Association Community Action Network Committee, which works with many of the city’s nonprofit organizations to serve the needs of the greater Denver community.
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 Science and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, conducting research into next-generation wireless standards and measurement techniques.
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).
Represented LSI Corporation, a global semiconductor technology company, in an ITC investigation involving numerous participants in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. In re Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-648.
Represent defendant manufacturer and seller of optical lenses against claims of patent infringement. Obtained summary judgment on the vast majority of the plaintiff’s claims, and the case currently is on appeal. Largan Precision Co. v. Genius Electronic Optical Co., 13-cv-02502 (N.D. Cal. filed June 4, 2013).
Obtained favorable settlement for the plaintiff in a patent infringement litigation, resulting in defendant leaving the specific industry. Pulse Engineering, Inc. v. Mascon, Inc., No. 08-cv-0595 (S.D. Cal. filed Apr. 1, 2008).
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 the defendant manufacturer and seller of premium children’s products against claims of patent infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition. Bebe au Lait LLC v. Mothers Lounge LLC, et al., No. 13-cv-3035 (N.D. Cal. filed July 2, 2013).
Represented Respondent Broadcom and several of its customers in a five-day trial before Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord in this investigation, which involved a variety of semiconductor devices and packages.
Obtained dismissal of all claims in software-related contract and copyright dispute. Builder MT LLC v. Zybertech Construction Software Services, et al., No. 08-0435 (D. Colo. filed Feb. 29, 2008).
Successfully represented the defendant 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 filed July 4, 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).
In January 2011, non-practicing entity 2-Way Computing, Inc. sued a number of Sprint and Nextel entities in Las Vegas, Nevada, accusing the old Nextel “push-to-talk” walkie-talkie cell phones of infringing 2-Way’s patent. Client Motorola designed and manufactured the Nextel phones and agreed to indemnify Sprint/Nextel in the case. We secured several favorable summary judgment and in limine rulings, including obtaining summary judgment of no infringement as to one family of the phones at issue and also as to 2-Way’s claims under the doctrine of equivalents, summary judgment of intervening rights barring pre-reexamination damages as to all but one claim, and exclusion of 2-Way’s infringement expert from offering testimony with respect to the one claim not subject to absolute intervening rights. The case settled the day before trial was set to begin. 2-Way Computing, Inc. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., No. 11-cv-00012 (D. Nev. filed January 5, 2011).
Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of defendants Starbucks, Seattle’s Best Coffee, Circuit City, Williams-Sonoma, and Pottery Barn in a patent dispute regarding stored value card transactions. Judgment affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. Realsource, Inc. v. Best Buy, et al., No. 1-771 (W.D. Tex filed Dec. 2, 2004).
Represents defendant 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. The case remains pending as to the last patent.Smart Systems Innovations LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, et al., No. 14-cv-08053 (N.D. Ill. filed October 15, 2014).
Successfully represented Broadcast Music Inc., recording artists, publishing companies, and a performance rights society in a series of copyright enforcement actions to enjoin the unauthorized public performance of musical works.
Defending Broadcom and its six downstream customers Technicolor, HTC, Comcast, Arista, NETGEAR, and ARRIS in patent infringement and importation investigation brought against them by Tessera Technologies, related to semiconductor chip packaging technology. Trial set for March 2017 before Administrative Law Judge Dee Sandra Lord, with related actions in D. Delaware and Europe. In re Certain Semiconductor Devices, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1010
Kilpatrick Townsend filed an infringement lawsuit on behalf of Hunter Douglas Inc., manufacturer of window coverings and architectural products, and Andrew J. Toti Testamentary Trust against Norman International for infringement of window covering patents. Norman responded by filing eight IPRs on four patents in the lawsuit. Kilpatrick Townsend successfully argued that six of the IPR trials should not be instituted, and was able to limit the IPR trials to just three claims total on the other two petitions.
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case Numbers IPR2014-00276, IPR2014-00282, IPR2014-00283, IPR2014-00286, IPR2014-01173, IPR2014-01174, IPR2014-01175, and IPR2014-01176.
The firm represented complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC in this investigation involving video decoder and wireless local area network patents. Following the evidentiary hearing, the ALJ determined that an exclusion order was appropriate. In re Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-837. (ITC investigation commenced 2011).
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. 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
Colorado Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section
Denver Bar Association
The Colorado Intellectual Property American Inn of Court
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.