Norris Boothe focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation matters, where he has engaged in patent litigation in the software, semiconductor, medical device, and consumer products fields. Drawing on his business experience, Mr. Boothe has also litigated business disputes involving trade secrets, licensing, antitrust, and commercial transactions, and performed due diligence in M&A transactions. Mr. Boothe has practiced before the International Trade Commission and worked on both district court and appellate litigation matters. Mr. Boothe is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Before becoming an associate with the firm, Mr. Boothe worked as a summer associate in 2013 and as a law clerk where he performed legal research and drafted briefs in preparation for patent litigation. In 2014, Mr. Boothe served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Lucy H. Koh in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Prior to launching his legal career, Mr. Boothe held various technical and executive roles for technology and software companies. He has several years of experience programming applications, designing databases, managing websites and data products, and managing engineering and product teams in both large businesses and start-up companies.
While attending UC Berkeley School of Law, Mr. Boothe served as associate editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal and also participated in the AIPLA Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition.
Mr. Boothe was recognized in 2021 and 2022 as one of the "Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch" for Intellectual Property Law by The Best Lawyers in America®.
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.
As lead trial counsel to the inventor and patent owner, obtained a verdict of willful infringement and an award of $20.3 for past damages after a seven day jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas. The Court increased the award to $23.6 million after ruling on post-trial motions. The two related inter partes review hearings resulted in an exceedingly rare final determination upholding the patentability of all challenged claims.
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
Insights View All
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law J.D. (2015)
University of California, Los Angeles, Anderson School of Management M.B.A. (2003) Entrepreneurship/Entrepreneurial Studies and Marketing
Haverford College B.A. (1993) Physics
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (2017)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (2016)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2016)
Vintners Club, Board of Directors, Member (2012-Present)
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.