| Biography:
Steven M. Bauer is a partner in the Firm’s Litigation Department, is head of the Firm’s litigation practice in Boston, co-leads the Firm’s Patent Litigation Practice Group and is a member of the Firm's Executive Committee. Steve founded the Boston office in 2004 and was its managing partner until 2008.
Steve has over twenty-five years of experience concentrating exclusively on complex patent, trade secret, trademark, copyright and licensing litigation and dispute resolution. He has been lead trial counsel in cases involving technologies found throughout the New England technology corridor, including satellite, cable, wireless, VoIP, RFID, and SONET communications and networks; voice recognition, speech generation, encryption, digital signal processing and error correction algorithms; analog and digital circuits, and semiconductor physics and manufacturing; surgical, medical, genetic and biomolecular research, diagnostic and therapeutic tools and technologies; software, internet, financial, and business method processes; high-energy plasma systems and laser technology; and materials such as nanotechnology, polymers, and high-temperature superconductors.
Steve received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his law degree, cum laude, from Boston University School of Law. After law school, Steve clerked for Judge Philip Nichols, Jr. at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Steve has been on the Roster of Neutrals of the American Arbitration Association since 1987, and regularly acts as an arbitrator in disputes relating to technically complex license and patent disputes. He presently serves as co-chair of the Boston Patent Law Association’s Antitrust Committee. He was vice-chair of the Litigation Committee of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) from 2004-2008, was chair of the Litigation Committee of the Boston Patent Law Association (1998-2001), and served as an editor of the AIPLA Quarterly Journal (2002-2005). He has also been appointed to the Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS) Board of Directors. Steve was an Adjunct Professor at Boston University School of Law from 1987 to 2004, where he taught intellectual property trial advocacy, patent law and computer law courses in the school’s J.D. program, and he was on the Board of Advisors of the Boston University Law School Science and Technology Journal (1997-2000).
Steve has been listed as one of the leading lawyers in his field by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Business Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America, LawDragon, and IP Yearbook, and he has been named a Boston and New England “SuperLawyer.” According to Chambers USA, Steve has been called a client’s “number one choice, ‘results-oriented,’ ‘a great strategist,’ ‘pragmatic and flexible,’ and ‘the litigator that clients want.’”
Steve speaks regularly to leading patent law and industry groups (e.g., The Sedona Conference, MIT Sloan School Entrepreneurship Conferences, National Bureau of Economic Research, Practicing Law Institute), and has been quoted often in the national press on intellectual property issues (e.g., The Economist, Associated Press, Forbes, InfoWorld, Boston Business Journal).
Steve is admitted to the bars of Massachusetts and New York, the United States Courts of Appeal for the Federal and First Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court. Steve is also registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and is presently admitted pro hac vice to appear in the federal courts in Texas, New Hampshire, California, Delaware, Virginia, Florida, and Illinois.
Steve’s clients currently include Analog Devices; Athenahealth; Endeca Technologies; Ivoclar Vivadent; Payless ShoeSource; Salary.com; T-Mobile; Segway; Sonus Networks; NMS Communications; SeaChange International; MKS Instruments, Inc.; and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Representative Patent Litigation Matters
Trials and Dispositive Judgments
Biax Corp. v. Analog Devices, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)
Represented Analog Devices in the defense of a five-patent litigation relating to digital signal processing in parallel computers. After jury selection, the plaintiff dropped its demand and agreed to settle the case against Analog for a token payment.
PSN v. Ivoclar Vivadent. (N.D. Ill.)
Represented Ivoclar – the world’s leading manufacturer of dental crowns and implants -- in the defense of a patent case seeking over $50 million in damages. Ivoclar obtained summary judgment of non-infringement.
Beam Laser Systems, Inc. v. SeaChange International, Inc. and Cox Communications, Inc. (E.D. Va.)
Represented SeaChange International, the leading manufacturer of video-on-demand servers, and its customer, Cox Communications, in defense of a patent infringement allegation involving three patents and a damages demand of $100 million. After an evidentiary evidentiary Markman hearing, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in our clients’ favor.
Candela Corp. v. The Regents of the University of California (American Arbitration Association)
Represented Candela in an arbitration relating to a patent license dispute involving cryogenic cooling devices used for cosmetic laser surgery. After a one week evidentiary hearing, the matter was resolved.
Digital Privacy, Inc. v. RSA Security Inc. (E.D. Va.)
Defended RSA Security against claims that its SecurID® Passage computer security product infringed three patents. After an evidentiary Markman hearing, the Court granted summary judgment that the product did not infringe. The Court’s decision is reported at Digital Privacy, Inc. v. RSA Security Inc., _ F. Supp. 2d _, 62 USPQ2d 1773 (E.D. Va. 2002).
France Telecom v. RSA Security Inc.
(International Chamber of Commerce, Paris, France)
Represented RSA Security in a defense of a patent license dispute relating to an encryption algorithm. The demand was against RSA for more than $100 million. After a one-week hearing in Paris, the arbitrator found in RSA’s favor, and awarded legal fees.
Hypertherm, Inc. v. American Torch Tip Co.
(M.D. Fla. (Tampa))
Represented Hypertherm in its assertion of six patents involving high-energy plasma torches. After a jury trial, the jury found that the defendant willfully infringed Hypertherm’s patents, and Hypertherm was awarded its damages and attorney fees.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology &. American Superconductor Corp. v. Rogan (D. Mass.)
Represented MIT (a co-plaintiff with American Superconductor) in this 35 U.S.C. § 146 appeal from the Patent Office regarding the scope of MIT’s foundational patent on high-temperature superconducting technology. After a bench trial, the Court affirmed the validity and broad scope for this MIT patent.
MKS Instruments, Inc. v. Advanced Energy Corp. (D. Del.)
Represented MKS Instruments in two patent actions against Advanced Energy Corp., in a cases relating to high-energy plasma processing equipment used by the semiconductor industry. In the first case, the jury returned a verdict of infringement and awarded damages of more than $4 million. In a second jury trial against Advanced Energy’s “revised” product two years later, the jury again found infringement in our client’s favor.
Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc. (D. Mass.; Fed. Cir.; U.S. Bankruptcy Ct.)
Represented Micron Separations in its appeal of an infringement decision adverse to it, and simultaneously, in a trial relating to its revised product. Micron Separation’s appeal was heard en banc by the Federal Circuit as the non-jury companion case to the Federal Circuit’s seminal decision in the Markman v. Westview case. Represented Micron Separations simultaneously in a tort and breach of contract trial in bankruptcy court alleging Pall’s bad faith patent litigation. After trial, the bankruptcy court issued a ruling awarding $3.7 million judgment in our client’s favor.
Polyclad Laminates Inc. v. MacDermid Corp. (D. N.H.)
Represented MacDermid in its defense of a patent infringement action brought by a competitor, relating to the chemical components used in printed circuit board manufacture. After a two-day Markman hearing, the court issued a summary judgment of non-infringement in our client’s favor.
ReSource America, Inc. v. Republic Packaging Corp. (N.D. Ill.)
Represented ReSource America in a trial involving a business method for recycling products efficiently. After trial, the court found that the defendant willfully infringed our client’s patents and increased the damages award accordingly.
Rubbermaid Incorporated v. Tucker Housewares Corp. (D. Mass.)
Represented Rubbermaid in this action against its largest competitor, Tucker Housewares, for infringement of Rubbermaid utility and design patents, trade dress and copyrights in connection with various storage products. After trial, Tucker Housewares was found liable, and an injunction issued that required Tucker to make product changes.
Other Significant Cases
Puma v. Payless ShoeSource (D. Mass.)
Represented Payless ShoeSource, the country’s largest retailer of shoes, in a trademark dispute relating to the stripes on running shoes.
Enterasys v. Foundry Networks (D. Mass.)
Represents Foundry, a leading manufacturer of routers and bridges, in defense of six patents relating to technology first patented by Digital Equipment and others fifteen years ago.
C2 v. Global Crossing, Qwest, Level 3 (E.D. Tex)
Represented these major telecommunications companies and their supplier in the defense of a patent case relating to VoIP switching technologies.
Speedtrack v. Wal-Mart and Endeca Technologies (N.D. Calif.)
Represents Endeca, the leading supplier of Internet search engines for online retail, and its customers, in a case relating to the search algorithms used.
Agere Systems, Inc. v. Multiplex, Inc. (D. Del.)
Defended Multiplex, a manufacturer of lasers and optical devices, against patent infringement and trade secret claims brought by Agere relating to four patents on high-speed optical switching devices.
Arrival Star, Inc. v. Descartes Systems Group Inc. (S.D. N.Y.)
Represented Descartes in defending against a fifteen-patent complaint relating to the tracking of packages using GPS and other technologies.
Boston Scientific Corp. v. Circon, Inc. (D. Mass.; E.D. Wisc.)
Represented Boston Scientific Corp. in asserting and then defending against patents relating to urological surgical devices in this seven-patent action in two federal courts.
Comtec Inc. v. Monarch Marking Systems, Inc. (D. R.I.)
Defended Comtec against charges brought by a competitor accusing Comtec of infringing nine patents covering portable electronic printers.
Comtech AHA Corp. v. Efficient Channel Coding, Inc. (N.D. Ohio)
Represented Comtech in a breach of patent license agreement dispute relating to error correction codes used in satellite communications.
Davox Corporation, Inc. v. Digital Systems, Inc. (W.D. Wash.)
Represented Davox in asserting and defending against patents in a litigation against its primary competitor concerning systems for managing automated call centers.
Excel Switching Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (D. Mass.)
Represented Excel Switching in its patent infringement action against Cisco, asserting a number of patents relating to digital switching technology.
Hypertherm, Inc. v. Inner Logic, Inc. (D. N.H.)
Represented Hypertherm in its assertion of two patents relating to a plasma ignition circuit.
Luyster v. RSA Security Inc. (D. Mass.)
Defended RSA Security in this patent infringement action relating to RSA’s RC6 encryption algorithm.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Sony Electronics Corp.; Sharp Corp.; Toshiba Corp. (D. Mass.)
Represented MIT in the enforcement of its twenty-patent digital television patent portfolio.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Dharmacon (D.Mass.)
Represented MIT in a license dispute involving its foundational patents on siRNA technology.
Mediacom, Inc. v. Rates Technology, Inc.
(U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts)
Represented Mediacom in its defense of this two-patent case involving telephone dialing networks.
Nortel Networks Ltd v. Foundry Networks, Inc. (D. Mass.)
Represented Foundry in its defense of a four-patent litigation involving packet switching devices.
Opti Corp. v. nVidia Corp. (E.D. Tex.)
Represented Opti in this multi-patent dispute relating to improved data access for microprocessor systems.
Rubbermaid Incorporated v. Sterilite Corporation (D. Mass.)
Represented Rubbermaid against a competitor involving claims of design patent and trade dress infringement
ScanSoft, Inc. v. ART Advanced Recognition Technologies, Inc. (D. Mass.)
Represented ART in its defense of a patent infringement action relating to speech recognition technology. The case ended after ScanSoft acquired our client.
|
