Elizabeth Rader is counsel in the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group. Her practice concentrates on intellectual property litigation in the U.S. District Courts and courts of appeals. She has experience representing prominent technology companies in patent litigation in diverse technical areas. She is experienced in all phases of patent litigation, including trial, acting as lead counsel at a number of claim construction proceedings and hearings on dispositive motions. Recognized as an outstanding writer, Elizabeth specializes in making highly technical subject matter understandable and presenting claims and defenses in context to present the client’s position in a way that is compelling.
After graduating from law school, Elizabeth served as a law clerk to the Honorable Alvin A. Schall of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After completing her appellate clerkship, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
From 2002 to 2004, Elizabeth was a Residential Fellow in the Center for Internet & Society at Stanford Law School, where she worked on landmark copyright and First Amendment cases with Professor Lawrence Lessig.
- Avepoint Inc. v. Janalent Corp., District of New Jersey (Case No. 2:09-CV-03694); Representing defendant Janalent Corp in trade secret misappropriation case arising out of a joint software development agreement.
- Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark Intl. et al; (Case No. 6:11-cv-495 (E.D. Tex.) Representing defendant JVC Americas Corporation against patent assertion entity’s allegations that camcorders and televisions infringe three patents relating to wireless communication.
- CYBERsitter, LLC v. The People's Republic of China et al., Central District of California (Case No. 2:10- CV-00038). Represented defendant Haier Group Corporation in litigation involving Internet filtering software. Case settled favorably.
- Elan Microelectronics Corp v. Apple Inc., Northern District of California (Case No. 5:09-CV-01531). Represented plaintiff asserting patents on touch screen and touchpad technology used in Apple iPhones and iPads. Case settled favorably.
- Seiko Epson Corporation v. Ninestar Image Co., Ltd., Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd. and Ninestar Technology Company Ltd., et al., District of Oregon (Case No. 3:06-CV-00236) and related litigation. Represented defendants accused of infringing patents on features of inkjet cartridges that allow for replacement cartridges to be compatible with Epson printers.
- Avago v. Elan Microelectronics Corp., Northern District of California (Case No. 5:04-CV-05385). Successfully defended seller of chips for use in optical mice accused of infringing two patents relating to digital processing of images.
- 3Com v. D-Link and Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, Northern District of California (Case No. 3:03-CV-02177). Defended a semiconductor designer accused of infringing seven patents relating to network interface connection technology, from filing of initial complaint through jury trial.
- Open Source Yoga Unity v. Bikram Choudhury, 2005 WL 756558 (N.D. Cal. 2005). Represented association of yoga teachers in declaratory judgment action concerning whether teaching yoga infringes author's copyright or trademark rights.
- Somma v. Great Ormond Street Hospital, Northern District of California (Case No. 02-5889 RW). Represented author in declaratory judgment action involving trademark and copyright in Peter Pan books and plays.
Courts of Appeals
- Seiko Epson Corporation v. Coretronic Corporation and Optoma Technology, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 2011-1120); Northern District of California (Case No. 3:06-CV-06946). Represented appellees. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of holding Seiko Epson's patent on a cooling system for a projector invalid, without opinion.
- Epistar Corporation v. International Trade Commission and Philips Lumileds Lighting Company, LLC, 566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Represented appellant Epistar Corporation. The Federal Circuit vacated a limited exclusion order issued by the ITC against Epistar and remanded to the ITC for consideration of Epistar's invalidity defenses.
- KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Member of appellate briefing team for Teleflex.
- Beethoven.com v. Librarian of Congress, 394 F.3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Briefed and argued D.C. Circuit appeal for small webcasters and Live365 concerning compulsory royalties and terms for webcasting of sound recordings.
- Brand X Internet Services v. FCC, 345 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2003). Authored Ninth Circuit amicus curiae brief of the American Civil Liberties Union.
- Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corporation and Haldex Brake Products Corporation and Haldex Brake Products AB, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 344 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Authored amicus curiae brief of Public Patent Foundation.
- Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) (principal author of amicus curiae brief of the American Intellectual Property Law Association).
- Valencia Systems, Inc. v. Packeteer, Inc., American Arbitration Association (No. 74 117 Y 00661 06 DEAR). First chaired arbitration in a breach of contract, copyright and trade secret dispute arising out of a software license and development agreement.
International Trade Commission
- Inv. No. 337-TA 523- Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC Optical Storage Devices II, (Inv. No. 337-TA-523). Represented respondent Sunext Technology.
- Inv. No. 337-TA-822,- Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets and Products Containing Same Including Televisions. Representing respondents AmTran Technology Co., Ltd. and AmTran Logistics, Inc.
Elizabeth Rader, counsel in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group, was quoted in a Law360 article discussing the significance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine was not limited by geography and it applied equally to goods made both in the United States and abroad.
March 20, 2013
In the Press
“Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons: A Copyright Case Every Patent Litigator Needs to Read,” Intellectual Property Today, July 2013.
“How to Testify in a Deposition for Patent Litigation,” EE Times, June 17, 2013.
June 17, 2013
"Fees for Patent Review Guts America Invents Act," EE Times, November 7, 2012.
November 7, 2012
Patents implicate divergent economic interests. Most new drugs would never be marketed without patent protection. Yet patent assertions by non-practicing entities are blamed with costing the electronics industry and consumers over $29 billion a year.
August 23, 2012
- New York
- District of Columbia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th, Federal and D.C. Circuits
- U.S. Supreme Court