Theodore Stevenson, III

合伙人,

Dallas

电话 +1 214 922 3507
邮箱 ted.stevenson@alston.com

A preeminent trial attorney, Ted’s clients turn to him for staunch advocacy when key intellectual property assets are on the line.

Won a full defense verdict following a jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas for T-Mobile against General Access Solutions, who was seeking $253 million on two base station patents. General Access initially sued under three patents as to 4G and 5G network infrastructure and sought damages of nearly $1 billion, but reduced its damages request after one of its patents was invalidated in an IPR proceeding. The remaining patents proceeded to trial, where Ted led the trial team representing T-Mobile and its equipment suppliers to a successful verdict. General Access Solutions v. T-Mobile.
Led the trial team representing Ericsson in a breach of FRAND jury trial, in which multiple billions of dollars were in dispute, against Apple in the Eastern District of Texas. The case, which arose out of Ericsson’s global essential patent licensing program, involved breach of breach of FRAND assertions by Apple based on Ericsson’s 4G and 5G royalty rates. Apple requested that the court conduct a rate-setting bench trial following the jury verdict on breach of FRAND, and Ericsson consented to the rate setting by the court. The parties reached a global patent licensing agreement on the final day of the jury trial, obviating the need for a rate setting trial. Ericsson v. Apple.
Represented Nokia in asserting its portfolio of H.264 and H.265 essential video coding patents against Hewlett Packard and Amazon. The assertion comprised two ITC cases as well as multiple U.S. district court cases and cases in Europe and Brazil. Ted tried both ITC cases, which resulted in initial determinations in favor of Nokia, finding the patents infringed, valid, and rejecting the RAND defenses that were raised. Both defendants settled with Nokia following issuance of the initial determination. Nokia v. Hewlett Packard and Amazon.
Represented Ericsson in its global 4G, 5G, and H.265 essential licensing assertion against Lenovo and Motorola Mobility. The dispute involved multiple ITC cases by Ericsson and Lenovo against each other, as well as a district court case in the Eastern District of North Carolina and cases in Europe, Brazil, and Colombia. At an early stage in the dispute, Lenovo moved for an anti-suit injunction designed to shut down all the litigation and force the dispute into a rate setting trial in the UK. Ted persuaded the district court to deny the injunction, allowing the ITC cases to proceed to initial determination. Ted tried the ITC cases, which resulted in initial determination wins for Ericsson, with the administrative law judges finding the Ericsson-asserted patents to be infringed, valid, and rejecting the breach of F/RAND and license defenses that were asserted by Lenovo and Motorola Mobility. The cases settled following entry of the initial determinations and before ITC review. Ericsson v. Lenovo and Motorola Mobility.
Represented PanOptis in a patent infringement and breach of FRAND jury trial in which PanOptis asserted its 4G essential and H.264 patents against the second largest seller of cell phones worldwide. The jury found five patents were willfully infringed by the defendant and awarded damages. Based on the verdict of willful infringement, plus its finding that the defendant resorted to gamesmanship in its defense of the case, the district court found it to be an exceptional case and awarded PanOptis attorney fees. For the damages case, a bottoms up valuation model was presented that isolated the technical benefit of the PanOptis patents individually, financially quantified the technical benefit, and applied that to the defendant’s phones to determine the reasonable royalty that should have been paid resulting in royalties awarded by the jury of just under $3 per phone. PanOptis v. Huawei.
Won a defense verdict for Ericsson in the first jury-related breach of FRAND case related to cellular patents in the Eastern District of Texas. HTC brought the case challenging that Ericsson’s royalty rates for its global portfolio of 4G essential patents were excessive. The jury rejected all of HTC’s arguments and found that Ericsson’s royalty rates, which were $2.50 per phone or 1 percent with a cap and floor, in compliance with FRAND. The district court confirmed the verdict with a detailed declaratory judgment that held that Ericsson fully complied with FRAND and rejecting all HTC’s theories of recovery. The case is currently on appeal. HTC v. Ericsson.
Represented Ericsson in a global essential patent cross-licensing dispute against Samsung. Samsung obtained a secret anti-suit injunction from the Wuhan Intermediate Court in China purporting to prevent Ericsson from seeking a FRAND adjudication or an injunction on any of its standard essential patents. Ted argued and won a highly publicized anti-interference injunction from the Eastern District of Texas preventing Samsung from enforcing its anti-suit injunction and ordering indemnity. The dispute also involved numerous patents asserted by both parties in district court, the ITC, and in foreign venues. The matter settled with a global patent license agreement. Ericsson v. Samsung.
Asserted eight patents owned by Nokia covering H.264 video coding technology against Lenovo in litigation pending in the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Northern District of California, and the Eastern District of North Carolina. The case settled prior to the initial ITC hearing. Nokia v. Lenovo.
Defended Ericsson against breach of FRAND and antitrust claims brought by one of the top 10 cell phone manufacturers in the world. Counter-asserted Ericsson patents related to cell phone security features against the plaintiff, and won a jury verdict of willful infringement and a nine-figure judgment. Defended Ericsson in a bench trial in California district court, and recently won an appeal from the Federal Circuit remanding the case and holding that the California district court should have held a jury trial. TCL v. Ericsson.
Defended a U.S.-based multinational telecommunications company against allegations of patent infringement under patents the plaintiff alleged covered downloading of ringtones to cell phones. Ted took a trial deposition of the inventor, who was outside the district. The next business day following Ted’s cross of the inventor, the plaintiff walked away and voluntarily dismissed its case with prejudice.

Represented Unwired Planet in a jury trial asserting three patents related to location services, app store technology, and speeding up web browsing. Handled jury selection in district court in San Francisco, and before opening statements were scheduled to commence, the case was settled. Unwired Planet v. Apple.
Won a jury verdict against Intel and a number of its customers in a patent infringement case involving 802.11 wifi standard essential patents. Following the jury trial, the court held a bench trial to adjudicate defendants' assertions of RAND violations, after which it ruled in favor of Ericsson finding no RAND violation. The case was affirmed as to liability on appeal and remanded for a new trial on damages. Ericsson v. DLink.
Represented Nokia in its global licensing dispute, with involvement in two district court cases and one U.S. ITC case asserting eight H.264 standard essential patents and ten wireless implementation patents. The dispute settled prior to trial on confidential terms. Nokia v. Apple.
Won one of the largest jury verdicts in the history of the Eastern District of Texas on behalf Medtronic, asserting patents covering the design of balloon angioplasty catheters and polymers used to build the products. The case settled pending appeal in 2009. Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific.
Won a jury verdict for Summit 6 in a patent infringement suit asserting a photo pre-processing patent used in the defendant’s phones. Following trial in the Northern District of Texas, the jury found infringement and awarded lump sum damages. The court conducted a separate inequitable conduct trial and rejected allegations of inequitable conduct. Argued the appeal before the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the trial court in all regards. Summit 6 v. Samsung.
Represented Versata, an enterprise software company located in Austin, TX, in a jury trial against the world's leading enterprise software company, alleging infringement of enterprise software patents. At trial in 2009, the jury found Versata's patents infringed and awarded a nine-figure damages verdict. Following the verdict, the district court granted a new trial on damages as a result of changes in the law related to apportionment in damages calculations. On retrial, the jury awarded Versata more than twice the original verdict and held the defendant’s asserted design-around infringed. The district court entered judgment for damages and awarded an injunction. The case was ultimately affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Versata Software v. SAP.
Handled a patent infringement arbitration for Halliburton to determine infringement and royalty for patents related to hydraulic fracturing. Halliburton v. Baker Hughes.
Represented Ericsson in a patent infringement dispute comprising two U.S. ITC investigations, six U.S. District Court cases, and numerous international cases. The matter settled confidentially after the first ITC hearing and shortly before the first of a series of district court trials alleging patent infringement and seeking a declaration that Ericsson had complied with FRAND regarding its cellular standard essential and implementation patents. Ericsson v. Apple.
Won a jury verdict in Marshall, TX for Visto based on patents covering push email systems for smart phones. The jury awarded a 20 percent royalty and found willful infringement. The district court entered a final judgment including a permanent injunction as well as enhanced damages. Visto v. Seven Networks.
Won a jury verdict of infringement and damages against two defendants related to patents covering plug-in programs used in connection with websites. The defendants settled following the adverse verdict and prior to appeal. Droplets v. Sears and Overstock.
Represented Ericsson in its 2013 patent infringement dispute comprising two U.S. ITC actions and two district court actions. After two ITC hearings (one offensive and one defensive) involving standard essential and implementation patents related to LTE, WCDMA, GSM/GPRS/EDGE, and 802.11 wireless technology, the case settled favorably on the eve of the date for the ITC to release its initial determination. Ericsson v. Samsung.
Represented Medtronic in a series of patent infringement suits related to coronary stent design. These suits included a district court infringement case in which Medtronic asserted its stent patents against the defendant as well as five separate arbitration proceedings adjudicating the terms of various license agreements between the parties. Medtronic Inc. v. Cordis.
Won a patent infringement verdict for Ericsson in a case involving telecommunications integrated circuits and semiconductor fabrication patents following a two-week trial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed both the jury verdict awarding full damages over lost profits and a permanent injunction against the defendant. Ericsson v. Harris.
Represented Halliburton in a suit over alleged infringement of patents covering methods of forming composite parts for use in downhole tools, such as frac plugs, bridge plugs, and packers. The case settled on favorable terms. Weatherford International v. Halliburton.
Represented SunTrust Bank in a jury trial as defendant accused of infringing a patent related to check imaging and archiving. The plaintiff settled in the middle of trial shortly before the cross examination of the inventor was to begin. DataTreasury v. SunTrust, et al.
Won a jury verdict for Bedrock, which asserted a software patent covering a method for improving the speed and efficiency of web servers. Following a six day trial in Tyler, TX, the jury found the patent infringed, valid, and awarded a royalty to Bedrock. The case settled before the entry of judgment. Bedrock v. Google.
Defended EDS against patent infringement claims against EDS's Check 21 offering. Shortly before the 2005 trial, in the face of a substantial validity challenge to its patents, the plaintiff nonsuited its claims and gave EDS an irrevocable covenant-not-to-sue. DataTreasury v. EDS.
Represented Visto in numerous U.S. and international patent litigation matters. After Visto's patents were confirmed in a reexamination proceeding, the case was settled before the start of a jury trial. Visto v. Research in Motion.
Won a jury verdict of infringement for Svedala-Reedrill following a two week patent trial involving blast-hole drilling technology. The jury awarded full lost profits, enhanced damages, attorney fees, and a permanent injunction, which were all affirmed on appeal. Svedala-Reedrill v. Drilltech.
Represented Gulf South, an interstate natural gas pipeline, against a class of landowners seeking to have a court-appointed master take control of the pipeline system due to alleged violations of the Pipeline Safety Act. After the Eastern District of Texas entered a landmark ruling denying the plaintiff’s standing to bring most of their claims, the case settled on favorable terms for the client. Wyble v. Gulf South Pipeline.
Represented emsCharts in an inequitable conduct trial. After a bench trial, the court found the plaintiff's patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and entered a take nothing judgment in favor of emsCharts. Golden Hour v. emsCharts.
Represented i2 Technologies against assertions of infringement of seven patents. The case settled shortly after the Markman hearing. i2 v. SAP.
Defended Omni Financial against allegations of trade secret and trade dress infringement. Following a one week bench trial in Kansas City, the court found in favor of the client on all contested issues and entered a take nothing judgment. Pioneer v. Omni Financial.
Defended PIMCO against allegations that the company had infringed a patent covering interest rate hedging strategies for bond funds. Trans Texas v. Pacific Investment Management Co.
 Defended U.S. Synthetic and Halliburton against patent infringement claims based on four patents related to leached diamond drill-bit cutting elements. The case settled favorably shortly after the pretrial conference. ReedHycalog v. U.S. Synthetic and Halliburton.
Represented Vari-Lite, the company that created the world's first computer-controlled entertainment light, in a campaign asserting its pioneering patents against industry competitors. Won a preliminary injunction that prevented sales of hundreds of millions of dollars of infringing lighting systems. Ultimately, Vari-Lite settled its litigation matters with the infringers on favorable terms. Vari-Lite v. Martin Entertainment.

律师资格

德州
美国专利商标局

学历

University of Virginia (职业法律博士, 1988)
Northwestern University (理学士, 1985)

Court Admissions

U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas

Memberships

National Institute of Trial Advocacy
American Intellectual Property Law Association
Federal Circuit Bar Association
Barbara Lynn IP Inn of Court, master