Menu Close
Screen Shot 2018-07-09 at 3.22.43 PM
Overview

Rob is an experienced trial attorney with over 30 years of litigation practice, including many complex and heavily disputed cases. Rob focuses on intellectual property litigation in U.S. District Courts and the International Trade Commission, as well as counseling on intellectual property matters. He has successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants in numerous state and federal jury trials, in Section 337 actions at the ITC, and before appellate courts.  Rob has handled disputes concerning a wide variety of technologies, including computer hardware and software, semiconductors, telecommunications, networking technology, medical imaging, medical devices and product design.  He also advises clients on portfolio development and other intellectual property strategies.

Rob has been recognized as a Washington D.C. SuperLawyer in intellectual property litigation for several years. He was also ranked as a top ITC practitioner and leading lawyer by The Legal 500 United States. Rob is admitted to practice in Virginia, the District of Columbia, and North Carolina, and before the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fourth and Federal Circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a registered patent attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Rob also served as a Judge Advocate in the United States Army, where he tried numerous courts-martial, represented the United States in appellate matters, and handled espionage and capital murder cases.

Rob is a frequent speaker on intellectual property litigation topics, and previously served as Vice Chair of the International Trade Commission (ITC) Committee of the Intellectual Property Owners Association. He is the author or co-author of several articles, including “Section 337 Orders – Remedies and Enforcement: Demystifying Section 337 Investigations at the ITC,” Intellectual Property Owners Association (July 2006); “Advantages of a Section 337 Investigation at the U.S. International Trade Center,” IP Litigation (May/June 2006); “The Court’s Proper Role in Construing the Claim of a Design Patent,” Law Journal Newsletter – Patent Strategy and Management Vol. 5, No. 1 (May 2004); “A New Standard for Convoyed Sales Damages: Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelly Co., Inc.,” IP Links (May 1996); and “Waiver of Privilege in Patent Litigation,” IP Links (June 1995).

Education_title
  • LL.M., Georgetown University Law Center, 1992
  • J.D., University of North Carolina School of Law, 1985
  • Bachelor of Engineering Technology, cum laude, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 1982
Court&other Admissions_Title
  • Admitted to practice in Virginia, District of Columbia, and North Carolina
  • Admitted United States Supreme Court; United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, United States District Court for Eastern District of North Carolina; United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina; United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina; as well as numerous admissions in other Courts pro hac vice.
Representative Litigation Experience_title
  • UHS of Delaware v. United Health Services, Inc., et al. (M.D. Pa.) – Represented United Health Services and six subsidiaries against allegations of trademark infringement.
  • Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (E.D. Tex.) – Representing Hewlett-Packard Enterprise in a case involving Power over Ethernet technology.
  • Certain Communication Equipment, Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same, including Power over Ethernet Telephone, Switches, Wireless Access Points and Routers (USITC 337-TA-817); ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al., v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al. (N.D. Cal.) – Represented Hewlett-Packard Enterprise in ITC investigation and district court case involving Power over Ethernet technology.
  • Power Integrations v. Fairchild II (Del.); Power Integrations v. Fairchild International, et al. (N.D. Cal.) – Represented Fairchild and System General in patent litigation and trials involving power conversion semiconductor technology.
  • Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (USITC 337-TA-735) – Represented Spansion in ITC investigation regarding semiconductor memory technology.
  • Telecommunications Systems v. Sybase, et al. (E.D. VA and Del) – Represented Sybase in a case involving software patents related to location-based services for tracking mobile devices.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (USITC 337-TA-847) and Nokia Inc., et al. v. HTC America, et al. (Del.) – Represented HTC in an ITC investigation involving various aspects of handset technology.
  • Tyco v. Medrad (S.D. OH, Fed. Cir.); and Certain Magnetic Imaging Resonance Imaging Injection Systems and Components Thereof (USITC 337-TA-434) – Represented Medrad, Inc. in ITC and district court patent infringement litigation involving patents relating to MRI technology and contrast fluid injectors for medical imaging.
  • In re Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Controls Technology (USITC 337-TA-747 and Del.) – Represented Rovi Corporation in an ITC investigation involving program guides and parental controls.
  • Fonar Corporation v. HealthSouth Corporation (E.D.N.Y) – Represented HealthSouth against allegations of patent infringement of the multi-angle oblique imaging feature on MRI scanners
  • Certain Insect Traps, (USITC 337-TA-498) – Represented Mosquito Magnet in ITC investigation regarding mosquito reduction technology.
  • Ciena Corporation v. Corvis Corporation (D. Del.) – Represented Corvis against allegations of patent infringement of Wavelength Division Multiplexing system used in fiber optic communications
  • Trounson Automation LLC v. Yaskawa Electric Corporation (E.D. Tx.) – Represented Trounson in pursuing patent infringement of a machine tool servo control system
  • Leighton Technologies LLC v. Oberthur Card System; and HID Corporation v. Leighton Technologies LLC (N.D. Ohio and C.D. Cal.) – Representing Leighton in multiple cases pursuing patent infringement of a process for manufacturing plastic cards with integrated circuits
  • Motorola v. Qualcomm and Qualcomm v. Motorola (S.D. Ca.) – Represented Qualcomm in a series of lawsuits covering 10 patents that included Qualcomm’s CDMA standard technology, as well as Motorola’s flip phone design