Ben Kleinman is an experienced litigation attorney and registered patent attorney. He focuses his practice on litigation including patent litigation and complex civil litigation. He has particular expertise in software, computer architectures, consumer electronic devices, financial products, licensing disputes, consumer products, NDA counseling, and trade secret disputes. He has appeared before multiple district and appellate courts in these matters and in pro bono cases relating to prisoner rights and immigration matters.
Ben has practiced law for over 12 years. Before law school, he had a seven year career with Reuters (now Thomson Reuters), where he held a variety of technology and business management roles.
Ben earned his J.D. from New York University School of Law. He earned his B.S. in Computer Science and Mathematics, summa cum laude, from Tulane University and studied theoretical computer science as a Marshall Scholar at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
Ben has authored and been a contributing author to several articles on privacy, antitrust, trademarks, and patent damages, and was a contributing author to the ABA Annual Review of Intellectual Property Law Developments from 2008 until the Review’s discontinuation after 2011.
Lead mass action asserting civil rights claims on behalf of group of homeless individuals pro bono against municipality to halt illegal eviction. Successfully resolved with resettlement payments to individual plaintiffs. (N.D. Cal.)
Served as counsel for AirWatch, a leader in mobile device management, in defense of claims of infringement related to accessing, manipulating, monitoring, protecting and synchronizing data and software over a network across multiple devices.
Represented defendant Adobe in a patent infringement case involving distributed storage systems. Case settled shortly after Adobe successfully moved to disqualify opposing counsel from representing plaintiff. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, No. 1:12-cv-00874 (D. Del. filed July 12, 2012).
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).
We successfully defended Oracle against Thought in a patent infringement case filed in the Northern District of California involving seven patents for object-to-relational mapping technology. Over a three-year period, we defeated a claim for $130 million in damages by (1) invalidating three patents in IPR proceedings; (2) obtaining voluntarily dismissals of three more patents; and (3) obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement of the final patent. The case upheld on appeal before the Federal Circuit. Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, No. 3:12-cv-05601-LB (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 31, 2012).
Insights View All
New York University School of Law J.D. (2008) Review of Law & Social Change, Articles Selection Editor
Tulane University B.S. (1996) Computer Science and Mathematics, summa cum laude
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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 Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2010)
American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law
San Francisco Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Member
Law Students for Reproductive Justice, Alumni Network Committee
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.