Patent Litigation
HKW represents technology companies and innovators in patent litigation in U.S. federal district courts, for both plaintiffs and defendants. We handle the full life cycle of patent disputes—from pre-suit case assessment and early motion practice through claim construction (Markman), fact and expert discovery, dispositive motions, trial, and post-trial proceedings.
Lead Attorneys
For matters involving patent litigation, clients often begin with: Steven G. Hill and David K. Ludwig.
Our team is built for matters that require both technical fluency and courtroom judgment. We regularly litigate cases involving multiple patents, multiple accused products, and complex damages issues, and we scale our staffing to match the stakes and the schedule.
Steve Hill and David Ludwig are recognized in IAM’s Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals.
Plaintiff-Side Patent Enforcement and Defense-Side Patent Litigation
Patent litigation posture differs depending on whether a client is enforcing a patent or defending an infringement claim. We approach both with the same objective: develop a litigation-grade theory that will hold up through discovery and expert scrutiny, and position the case for decisive rulings at key milestones.
For patent owners (plaintiffs), we focus on early claim mapping, infringement proof, and remedies valuation, including damages frameworks that can be supported with admissible evidence.
For accused infringers (defendants), we emphasize early noninfringement theories, invalidity themes that remain robust under realistic claim construction, and practical motion practice designed to narrow issues, reduce exposure, and control cost. Where appropriate, we also litigate fee-shifting and other post-judgment issues.
We have structured enforcement representations using alternative fee arrangements (including contingency or partial-contingency structures) where the matter and risk profile justify that approach.
Technical Scope and Industry Coverage
HKW litigates patent disputes across a broad spectrum of technologies and industries, including:
- Electrical engineering
- Computer systems, internet, software, and hardware technologies
- Telecommunications and networking
- Medical devices, healthcare technology, and life sciences
- Chemical and biomolecular engineering
- Construction products and industrial systems
- Mechanical engineering and consumer products
Our focus is not merely technical comprehension—it is using the technical record to develop clear positions on claim scope, infringement, validity, and damages that can be presented effectively to judges and juries.
How We Work
Patent cases often hinge on a small number of decisive issues. We build case plans around those decision points and manage the litigation to maintain strategic leverage at each stage:
- Early case assessment and theory alignment
- Targeted claim construction strategy tied to outcome-determinative terms
- Discovery planning that protects sensitive information while building a usable record
- Expert strategy coordinated with dispositive motion posture
- Trial preparation that translates technical issues into clear, jury-understandable themes
Patent disputes frequently rise or fall on expert testimony. Over years of practice, HKW has developed a deep bench of technical and damages experts and understands how to deploy expert work efficiently, without turning the case into an uncontrolled cost center.
Courtroom Perspective
HKW’s patent litigators have substantial trial experience, and two of our partners have served as special masters in intellectual property matters—experience that informs how we present technical disputes in a way that is practical, organized, and aligned with how courts actually decide issues.
Why HKW for Patent Litigation
- Litigation-grade theories early: we align infringement/invalidity and remedies positions early so they hold up through discovery, experts, and dispositive motions.
- Technical fluency with courtroom clarity: we translate complex technology into decisive claim-scope, infringement, validity, and damages themes judges and juries can use.
- Trial experience and practical court perspective: our team litigates cases through trial and post-trial and includes partners who have served as special masters in IP matters.
- Recognized patent litigators: Steve Hill and David Ludwig are recognized in IAM’s Patent 1000.
- Integrated PTAB + appeal planning: we coordinate district court posture with PTAB options and preserve issues for Federal Circuit review where it matters.
Related IP Litigation Capabilities
HKW coordinates strategy across related IP proceedings and appeals. See also:
Representative Matters
Sanho Corporation v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc., et al
N.D. Ga., Nos. 1:18-cv-05385-SDG; 1:20-cv-02150-SDG
Represented plaintiff in design-patent dispute involving multi-function USB-C docking stations and accused hub products; obtained rulings allowing patent, copyright and trademark infringement claims to proceed to trial, followed by jury findings of willful patent and copyright infringement, an award of over $1 million in damages, plus interests, legal costs and additional post-judgment relief.
Beverage Dispensing Solutions, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company
N.D. Ga., No. 1:14-CV-00220-TCB
Represented plaintiff as co-counsel in utility-patent dispute involving beverage dispensing systems that mix components, monitor supply levels, and communicate with remote order-processing systems; secured favorable claim construction rulings following Special Master proceedings. Defeated summary judgment motions and Daubert challenges. Case settled on eve of trial.
Merrill Manufacturing Company v. Simmons Manufacturing Company
N.D. Ga., No. 1:20-cv-3941-MLB
Represented plaintiff in design-patent and trade-dress dispute involving electrical terminal block and wire-connector products; defeated dismissal of induced infringement and willful infringement claims.
Rapha Products Group, LLC v. Skullcandy, Inc.
N.D. Ga., No. 1:10-cv-3388-JEC
Represented plaintiff in design-patent dispute involving tubular portable speaker products; defeated summary-judgment motion on noninfringement.
Pipeline Technologies Incorporated v. Telog Instruments Incorporated
D. Ariz., No. CV-13-02104-PHX-SPL
Represented plaintiff in patent dispute involving pipeline monitoring systems and dynamic transient pressure recording technology; defeated early summary-judgment motion pending claim construction.
Putnam v. Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc.
N.D. Ga., No. 1:05-CV-2011-BBM
Represented plaintiff in utility-patent dispute involving shelf-liner products for wire-frame shelving; defeated summary judgment as to key accused products, allowing infringement claims to proceed to trial.
VersaTop Support Systems, LLC v. Georgia Expo, Inc.
D. Or., No. 3:15-cv-02030-JE
Represented defendant in patent dispute involving pipe-and-drape coupler technology used in trade-show booth systems; obtained summary judgment resulting in dismissal with prejudice.
Kinglite Holdings, Inc. v. Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd., et al
C.D. Cal., Nos. CV 14-03009 JVS (PJWx); CV 14-04989 JVS (PJWx)
Represented defendants in patent dispute involving assertion of 25 patents relating to UEFI firmware and computer boot-process and related power management technology; succeeded in bringing 16 different inter partes review proceedings resulting in the invalidation of most of the patents at issue; the remaining patents were declared invalid for lack of patentable subject matter, and a judgment of non-infringement and award of over $1 million in attorney’s fees for the defendants was obtained.
Strategic Questions for Patent Litigation
What should a company do in the first 30–60 days of a patent dispute?
The first 30–60 days usually determine cost and leverage. If a company is considering suit, the immediate work is pressure-testing infringement proof, damages, and the business objective. If it is defending a case, the critical tasks are securing the technical record, identifying the strongest noninfringement and invalidity themes, assessing venue or transfer options, and deciding whether PTAB should be part of the strategy.
What usually decides a patent case before trial?
Most patent cases narrow around a small number of issues: one or two claim terms, a few claim limitations, and a damages theory that either survives scrutiny or does not. In practice, the best results come from building the case early around those decision points rather than trying to litigate every possible issue at once.
How should claim construction be used to change the outcome of the case?
Markman should not be treated as an academic exercise. The right constructions eliminate an infringement theory, strengthen an invalidity position, or create a clean path to summary judgment and appeal. We focus on the terms that actually move outcome, not on compiling a long list of disputes for its own sake.
What makes a noninfringement or invalidity position durable in a technically complex case?
The most durable positions are usually simple: a missing claim limitation, a claim scope the patent owner cannot prove, or prior art that maps cleanly under a realistic construction. Technical analysis, contentions, document discovery, and expert work all need to support the same theory. When those pieces drift apart, the case becomes harder to explain and more expensive to litigate.
How do you handle source code and other highly sensitive technical discovery?
In software and electronics cases, source code discovery can decide both the merits and the cost. The right approach is to negotiate protective-order terms early, narrow review to the important issues, control access carefully, and build a record that supports dispositive motions without exposing more of the business than the case requires.
What really drives damages exposure and settlement value in patent litigation?
Damages are usually driven by apportionment, product architecture, the role of the accused feature, and the real-world licensing or noninfringing-alternative story. Early damages analysis is not just about settlement. It tells you which technical and business discovery is the most important and which themes will or will not survive expert scrutiny.
When does PTAB fit into district court patent litigation?
PTAB can be a powerful lever, but only if it fits the district court schedule, the estoppel picture, and the merits. The real question is not whether an IPR sounds attractive in the abstract; it is whether the PTAB case will improve stay posture, narrow exposure, or strengthen settlement leverage without creating contradictions or downstream problems.
When is a patent case ready for mediation, summary judgment, or trial?
A patent case is ready when the exposure analysis is tied to the actual record: claim construction, the key technical documents, expert positions, and a damages model the other side can defend or attack with credibility. Settlement gets real when both sides can see how the judge or jury is likely to decide the key issues.
