With clients across a broad range of sectors and industries, Shearman & Sterling’s trial-tested patent and trade secret litigators have extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants through all phases of patent litigation.

Patent and Other IP Trial Experience

The firm’s intellectual property group routinely litigates patent and trade secret cases at both the trial and appellate levels in federal court and at the International Trade Commission (ITC).  We have a “trial-ready” approach to litigation. Our partners have been lead counsel in patent infringement cases across the country, including in such frequent patent courts as the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, the Eastern District of Michigan, the District of Delaware, the Northern and Central Districts of California, and the Southern District of New York.

Technical Experience

Shearman & Sterling’s intellectual property litigation group has the technical expertise to explain complex scientific concepts to judges and juries. The team includes attorneys with degrees in electrical engineering, physics (including one Ph.D.), computer science, chemical engineering, and industrial engineering. We have litigated cases relating to semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, automotive components, cell phones (including wireless communication standards), battery chemistry, medical devices and instruments, power tools and aerospace equipment.

Success Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

The group also has extensive experience representing both patent owners and patent challengers in post-issuance proceedings before the PTAB at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), ex parte re-examinations, and the recently sunsetted covered business method review (CBM). Our attorneys have a very strong track record across the spectrum of PTAB proceedings, and have been at the forefront of many cutting-edge IPR tactics, such as successfully challenging a patent’s priority date to make it PGR eligible, leading to the invalidation of all claims on Section 112 grounds, forcing patent owner to take positions that admit non-infringement, and defeating arguments that the one-year IPR time bar applies to International Trade Commission complaints.