Taylor Higgins Ludlam is an experienced trial lawyer handling patent infringement and complex commercial litigation matters. Ms. Ludlam heads the Patent Litigation Team in North Carolina and represents a wide range of clients in the telecommunications and technology industries. She has significant courtroom and trial experience in federal courts throughout the United States, including the U.S. International Trade Commission. Most recently, Ms. Ludlam co-led a trial team representing GREE, Inc. in a series of patent infringement suits against Supercell, resulting in over $100 million in jury verdicts in GREE’s favor following two jury trials in 2020 and 2021.
Ms. Ludlam has experience with complex patent infringement litigations involving multi-district litigation and has practiced before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. She also has extensive experience with patent and complex business litigation cases involving complex e-discovery issues. Additionally, she has represented various companies in complex contract disputes, trademark infringement, and class action lawsuits.
Ms. Ludlam was recognized in the NC Lawyers Weekly's 2019 Women of Justice. She was awarded the Women in Business Award from the Triangle Business Journal in 2018. Ms. Ludlam was selected as a North Carolina “Rising Star” in Business Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine in 2014.
Representing GREE, Inc., a Japanese gaming and internet media company in a large-scale patent battle with Supercell, a Finnish mobile game development company. Kilpatrick Townsend launched suits involving more than 20 patents against Supercell. The case has led to a complex series of litigations in district court resulting in more than $100 million in jury verdicts in favor of GREE, as well as at the PTAB and before the Federal Circuit. Ms. Ludlam and the Kilpatrick Townsend team obtained a jury verdict for GREE in the Eastern District of Texas of willful infringement, asserting five patents and an award of at least $8.5 million for damages against Supercell in September 2020, and a second jury verdict of willful infringement of five patents in favor of GREE and an award of $92 million in damages in May 2021. GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy.
Prevailed on summary judgment of non-infringement for AT&T Mobility against Advanced Media Networks, LLC (AMN) in the Northern District of Texas, which was affirmed on appeal. The District Court also awarded AT&T its post-Markman fees of over $250,000. AMN claimed that its patent covered AT&T’s wireless tethering/mobile hotspot service for its smartphones and asserted that it would be seeking as much as $572 million in damages from AT&T. After the summary judgment win was affirmed and the District Court awarded fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, AMN filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Advanced Media Networks LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-03496 (N.D. Tex. filed Oct. 27, 2015).
Obtained complete defense victory for Lenovo and Motorola Mobility against Evolved Wireless’s assertion of five patents alleged to be standard essential patents reading on the ETSI and 3GPP/LTE standards. We used our extensive knowledge of ETSI and 3GPP standards to defend our clients. We successfully invalidated a number of patents and obtained summary judgment on the other patents, which was affirmed at the Federal Circuit. Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd. et al., No. 1:15-cv-00544 (D. Del. filed June 25, 2015).
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).
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).
Represented 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. 1:2012-cv-00565 (D. Del. filed May 4, 2012).
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 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.
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. Served as 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).
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).
Successfully defended a 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.
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.