Source: https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/r/richard-rainey
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 17:17:32+00:00

Document:
Richard Rainey has substantial experience representing clients in district court and ITC patent trials, and appeals of patent cases. He has notable experience advising clients in the technology sector, and has handled cases involving a range of complex technologies. His ability to provide holistic and practical solutions in patent disputes is enhanced by his in-house experience, having served as GE’s Global Chief IP Litigator and head of GE’s Intellectual Property Litigation Center of Excellence. Mr. Rainey also devotes considerable time to bar associations, and teaching and writing in the intellectual property field.
Mr. Rainey has also been recognized as a leading appellate litigator in patent matters. Over the course of his career, he has been involved in more than 75 appeals in patent cases before the Federal Circuit. One notable success includes his appellate win for Thomson Reuters in MuniAuction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Covington team obtained reversal of an $85 million jury verdict, earning him recognition in AmLaw. And, most recently, Mr. Rainey led the Covington team in Return Mail v. U.S. Postal Service, where the Supreme Court on October 26, 2018, granted a writ of certiorari on the question of whether the U.S. government is a "person" entitled to file post-issuance review proceedings under the America Invents Act.
Mr. Rainey, as a registered patent attorney, has also had substantial experience before the PTAB in various post-grant proceedings.
In addition to his work as a litigator, Mr. Rainey has for many years been an officer in the Giles S. Rich Inn of Court, served in the leadership of the ABA-IPL Section, and chaired the committee of the year for IPO. He is a co-author on the leading treatise on practice and procedure before the Federal Circuit – “Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Practice and Procedure” and a co-author on the chapter on appellate practice in BNA’s “Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook.” Mr. Rainey also teaches patent enforcement at George Washington Law School.
Obtained reversal of a jury verdict of willful infringement and a permanent injunction for Alstom Grid in a case involving grid management software. Dominion Energy, Inc., et al. v. Alstom Grid LLC, No. 17-1158 (Fed. Cir. March 15, 2018).
Obtained affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement for GE in a case involving turbine blade manufacturing methods. Oleksy v. GE, No. 16-1149 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2016).
Achieved a reversal of summary judgment of invalidity for GE in a case involving LED heat sink patents. GE Lighting Solutions LLC v. Lights of Am., Inc., 663 Fed.Appx. 938 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Attained a reversal of summary judgment of non-infringement for GE in a case involving LED technology in GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F. 3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Obtained affirmance of a summary judgment that GE was licensed under the asserted patents in a case involving LED technology in Relume v. GE, No. 14-1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Achieved a reversal of a significant judgment and permanent injunction against DeMonte Fabricating in a patent case involving segmented truck covers. Sundance v. DeMonte Fabricating, et al., 550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Obtained a reversal of an $85 million judgment and permanent injunction against Thomson Reuters and i-Deal in a patent case involving electronic municipal bond auctions. MuniAuction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., et al., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Represented Juniper Networks obtaining affirmance of a judgment of non-infringement in a patent case involving network technology. Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 2574744 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (non-precedential) (affirming judgment of non-infringement).
Attained a reversal of an $80 million judgment against United Catalysts. Southern Clay Products v. United Catalysts, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1606, 2002 WL 1733333 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (nonprecedential).
Defended SmithKline Beecham in a patent dispute regarding the purification process of pertactin, an active ingredient in a type of pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine. The matter involved patent defense as well as litigation with the Food and Drug Administration. Connaught Lab., Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham P.L.C., 165 F.3d 1368, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Achieved a vacatur of a preliminary injunction against Titan Wheel Corporation, a manufacturer of off-highway wheels, in a patent infringement action relating to automotive locking differentials. Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int'l, Inc., 141 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Represented Samsung (respondent) in a patent infringement action at the ITC and Federal Circuit involving hierarchical menus for music players in which the ITC held the claims invalid under Section 101 in a special 100-day proceeding. In the Matter of Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-994.
Represented a number of respondents, including Samsung Electronics, in a patent infringement action at the ITC brought by BTG involving MLC NAND Flash memory. In re Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-683.
Represented Respondent in a patent infringement action at the ITC. In re Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-658.
Represented Samsung Electronics (respondent) in a patent infringement action at the ITC brought by Prof. Rothschild involving the manufacture of LEDs and LDs. In re Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-640.
Represented Intersil (respondent) in a patent infringement action at the ITC brought by Proxim involving 802.11 products. In re Certain Network Interface Cards and Access Points for use in Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum Wireless Local Area Networks and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-455.
Represented ASML (respondent) in a patent infringement action at the ITC brought by Nikon involving semiconductor manufacturing machines. In re Certain Microlithographic Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-468.
Representing Samsung in a patent infringement action brought against it in the Eastern District of Virginia by SmarTEN asserting patents directed to diet and exercise systems in which the district court held all claims invalid as directed to unpatentable subject matter on a Rule 12 motion. SmarTEN LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 1:17cv1381, 2018 WL 1368268 (E.D. Va. March 16, 2018). The matter is on appeal.
Represented Knowles in a breach of settlement agreement action involving MEMS microphones for mobile phones in the Northern District of Illinois. Knowles v. AAC, (N.D. Ill.).
Represented Samsung in a patent infringement action involving mobile phones in the Southern District of New York. Sentegra v. Samsung, (S.D.N.Y.).
Represented comScore in a patent infringement action against Nielson involving web monitoring in the Eastern District of Virginia. comScore, Inc. v. Nielsen, (E.D. Va.).
Represented Samsung in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas involving DLP televisions. Cheetah Omni LLC v. Samsung Electronics, (E.D. Tex.).
Represented Samsung, obtaining a stay pending reexamination on behalf of Samsung Electronics, in a patent infringement case in the Southern District of New York brought by Genoa Color Technologies involving DLP televisions. Genoa Color Tech., Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., et al. (S.D.N.Y.).
Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas brought by Charles E. Hill involving e-commerce web sites. Charles E. Hill & Assoc. v. Microsoft et al., (E.D. Tex.).
Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement action brought by MedioStream involving patents relating to video conversion technology asserted against Microsoft's Movie Maker product. MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex.). Obtained transfer of this matter to the N. D. Cal on a writ of mandamus. See In re Acer, cite.
Obtained transfer of a patent infringement action involving financial services products initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) to the District of Arizona under the MDL procedure on behalf of JPMorgan Chase Bank. Phoenix Licensing v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., (E.D. Tex.).
Obtained a temporary restraining order on behalf of ALZA, the world's leader in controlled release pharmaceuticals, barring a generic pharmaceutical company from employing one of ALZA's scientists in making a generic version of one of ALZA's drugs under a theory of inevitable disclosure. ALZA v. Andrx, (S.D. Fla. 1999).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.