Source: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/people/b/baskin-stephen-e
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:56:07+00:00

Document:
"A great client-oriented attorney - he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest."
Stephen Baskin is a partner in Mayer Brown's Intellectual Property Litigation practice and serves as the IP Practice Leader for the Washington DC Office. With over 20 years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters.
Steve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client’s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. Steve also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several such matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; review of certain mechanical features related to use of centrifugal industrial pumps, and case involving specific types of engine washing systems utilizing detection functionality. Steve also recently participated in a month long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality directed to specific hardware and software functions allowing for envelope free deposits.
Steve’s litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines; financial services institutions; manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies. Steve’s matters regularly involve representing companies in disputes related to electrical, computer software, telecommunications, mechanical and business method patents. Steve focuses on providing practical advice with a common sense approach to resolving matters, while aggressively protecting or pursuing his client’s interests.
Steve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is “[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.” In common with his colleagues, “he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective”; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named for each year since 2013 as one of the “[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers “ by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's "Best Lawyers" by Washingtonian Magazine.
Steve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He chairs the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA and DC Appleseed.
Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.
EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.
Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors.
IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.
NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.
Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.
St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.
Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.
Olivistar LLC . Regions Bank (Eastern District of Texas). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.
Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Airlines, US Airways, and Frontier Airlines against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.
Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).
Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).
Aeritas LLC v. Delta Air Lines Inc. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing Defending Delta Air Lines and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).
Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing Delta Air Lines against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Amazon.com, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).
Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012).
Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).
Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).
Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).
Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).
Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).
CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).
Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).
Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT&T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a "telecommunications device," that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a "remote computerized database" using a "communications exchange," and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).
Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate & Barrel and AT&T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate & Barrel and AT&T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).
MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application "United Airlines Mobile app." of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).
Autoscribe Corp. v. BB&T. Defended BB&T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB&T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB&T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).
Delta Air Lines Inc. v. Applied Interact LLC & Quest Nettech Corp. Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after Delta Air Lines Inc. ("Delta") rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech ("Quest") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of Delta. (Judge Robinson). Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).
US Supreme Court Overturns Federal Circuit on Liability for Inducing Infringement and Standard for Definiteness of Patent Claims: What Does This Mean for Patent Owners and Challengers?

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