Steven M. Bauer is head of the firm’s Boston Litigation practice and co-head of the firm’s national Patent Law Group. He is a member of the firm’s Executive Committee and was the managing partner of the Boston office until 2008.
Steve is a trial lawyer who practices exclusively in the areas of complex patent, trade secret, trademark, copyright and technology licensing litigation, mediation and dispute resolution. He has been lead trial counsel in cases involving the most difficult technologies to make understandable for a judge or jury, including satellite, cable, wireless, VoIP, RFID and SONET protocols and networks; voice recognition, speech generation, encryption, digital signal processing and error correction algorithms; analog and digital circuit design; lasers. optics, and high-energy plasma devices; surgical, medical, genetic and bio-molecular diagnostic, research and therapeutic tools and technologies; Internet, financial, and business method and software processes; and semiconductor materials, nano-materials, polymers and high-temperature superconductors.
According to Chambers USA, Steve has the reputation for being a client’s “number one choice, ‘results-oriented,’ ‘a great strategist,’ ‘a proven trial attorney,’ ‘pragmatic and flexible,’ and ‘the litigator that clients want.’”
Steve’s clients currently include American Honda, Analog Devices, Athenahealth, Brocade, Celgene, Cognex, Endeca Technologies, Payless ShoeSource, Progress Software, T-Mobile, Sonus Networks, SeaChange International, MKS Instruments, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Transamerica Life Insurance.
Steve speaks regularly to leading patent law and industry groups, including The Sedona Conference, MIT Sloan School Entrepreneurship Conferences, and National Bureau of Economic Research, and is regularly quoted in the national press on intellectual property issues, including The Economist, Nature, Associated Press, Forbes, InfoWorld.
Steve also has been a leader among his peers. He has been on the Roster of Neutrals of the American Arbitration Association since 1987 and is regularly called upon to act as an arbitrator in disputes relating to technically complex license and patent disputes. He also has been a member of the Executive Committee United States chapter of the AIPPI; Vice Chair of the Litigation Committee of the IPO; editor of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Quarterly Journal; on the Board of Advisors of the Boston University Law School Science and Technology Journal; and an Adjunct Professor at Boston University School of Law from 1987 to 2004, where he taught trial advocacy and patent and computer law courses in the school’s J.D. program.
read more »
Representative Patent Litigation Matters
Trials and Dispositive Judgments:
-
Transamerica Life Insurance Co. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. (N.D. Iowa, N.D. Indiana, Federal Circuit) Represented Transamerica in defending against three patents in three separate cases relating to annuity insurance products. Retained after an adverse jury verdict, obtained reversal of the $13 million judgment on appeal.
-
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 suit involving three patents and a damages demand of $100 million. After an 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 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), D.N.H.) Represented Hypertherm in its assertion of six patents involving high-energy plasma torches; after a trial, the jury found that the defendant willfully infringed Hypertherm’s patents, and Hypertherm was awarded its damages and attorney fees. In a follow-on action, represented Hypertherm in its assertion of additional patents in New Hampshire.
-
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 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 the second 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 Markman v. Westview. 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 a $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 evidentiary 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; 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.) Represented Foundry, a leading manufacturer of routers and bridges, in defense of six patents relating to technology first patented by Digital Equipment and others 15 years ago
-
C2 v. Global Crossing, Qwest, Level 3 (E.D. Tex) Represented three 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. Cal.) Represented 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.
read less »