Rudy Kim is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group and the hiring partner of the firm's Palo Alto office. Mr. Kim’s practice focuses on patent litigation and other intellectual property–related litigation and counseling.
Mr. Kim has extensive experience litigating and advising clients in complex matters involving a wide range of technologies, including computer hardware and software, semiconductors, data storage, digital security, broadband communication, medical devices and biotechnology. Clients include Accenture, Autodesk, Broadcom, Cypress Semiconductor, Freescale, HP, InvenSense, Silicon Image, Spansion, Tessera and Veritas (now Symantec).
In 2011, Mr. Kim was elected as a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, an honorary organization limited to one-third of one percent of lawyers licensed to practice in each jurisdiction.
Mr. Kim is an active member of the firm’s Diversity Strategy Committee, a past president of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley and an advisory board member of the Asian Law Alliance. His recent pro bono activities include participating in the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Veterans Pro Bono Program and the Legal Aid Society’s Deferred Action Clinic. Mr. Kim is also a member of the San Francisco Bay Area Intellectual Property American Inn of Court, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, and the Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association.
Mr. Kim received his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center, and received his B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles. Prior to joining Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Kim served as a law clerk to the Honorable Alan D. Lourie of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. As a registered patent attorney, Mr. Kim is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
STMicroelectronics v. InvenSense
(United States District Court, Northern District of California and International Trade Commission). Representing InvenSense in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement relating to microelectromechanical sensor (MEMS) technology.
MediaTek v. Freescale
(Northern District of California). Representing Freescale in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement relating to bus architecture, as well as arbitration and power management technology.
Auto-Dimensions v. Autodesk
(Eastern District of Texas). Representing Autodesk in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement directed to computer-assisted design (CAD) software functionality.
FastVDO v. Autodesk
(District of Delaware). Representing Autodesk in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement relating to H.264 (MPEG) video coding and decoding technology.
Avago Techs. U.S. Inc., et al. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., et al.
(District of Delaware). Representing Cypress in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement directed to optical navigation sensors and devices.
Uniloc v. Autodesk
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Autodesk in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement directed to software-activation technology.
Prism Technologies LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, et al.
(District of Nebraska). Representing Autodesk in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement directed to authentication systems.
Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. BMC Software, Inc., et al.
(Eastern District of Texas). Representing Autodesk in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement directed to activation and anti-piracy software.
Fast Memory Erase, LLC v. Spansion, Inc., et al.
(Northern District of Texas). Representing Spansion in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement directed to flash memory devices.
Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment, Inc., et al.
(Northern District of California). Representing Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment in litigation involving allegations of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract and unfair competition related to semiconductor chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and etch tools.
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
(Northern District of California). Represented CyberSource in litigation to enforce patent covering methods of detecting credit card fraud in Internet transactions. Participated in briefing on motions for summary judgment involving patentability of subject matter under In re Bilski. Case currently on appeal.
Applied Biosystems v. Illumina, Inc., et al.
(Northern District of California). Represented Applied Biosystems in litigation involving DNA-sequencing products. Participated in pre-trial preparations. Resulted in findings of non-infringement and invalidity in favor of Applied Biosystems.
Fastenetix, LLC v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.
(District of New Jersey). Represented Fastenetix in litigation to enforce patents covering spinal implant devices. Successfully obtained highly favorable Markman ruling prior to settlement. As reported in Medtronic’s 10-Q filed on December 3, 2008, Medtronic paid a total cash payment of $125 million, which included payment for past damages and the purchase of patents.
In re Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-543). Represented Broadcom before U.S. Customs and Border Protection to enforce ITC exclusion order.
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Tessera in an action involving multiple patents related to semi-conductor chip packages. Appeared and argued on behalf of Tessera at a pre-trial Markman hearing. Resulted in favorable settlement for Tessera.
IpVenture, Inc. v. ProStar Computer, Inc. et al.
(Central District of California, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Represented IpVenture in litigation to enforce patents covering thermal and power management technology for laptop computers. Successfully appealed case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and obtained reversal of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
IntraLase Corp. v. Carl Zeiss AG et al.
(California Superior Court). Represented IntraLase in litigation involving breach of contract and unfair competition claims related to ultrafast ophthalmic laser technology. Resulted in favorable settlement for IntraLase.
Unova, Inc. v. Acer Inc. et al.
(Central District of California). Represented HP in an action involving multiple patents relating to smart battery technology for laptop computers. Resulted in favorable settlement for HP, which also resolved related litigation in Texas state court.
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Intergraph Corp.
(District of Delaware). Represented Hewlett Packard in litigation to enforce patents covering image processing technology. Resulted in favorable settlement for HP, which also resolved related litigation.
Storage Computer Corp. v. Veritas Software Corp.
(Northern District of California). Represented Veritas in the defense of an action alleging infringement of patents relating to data storage technology. Successfully obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for all asserted claims.
Directed Elecs., Inc. v. Precision Engineering Indus.
(Central District of California). Represented Precision in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement and unfair competition. Successfully obtained dismissal of all state law claims prior to favorable settlement.
Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.
(Central District of California). Represented Cross in litigation to enforce patents covering spinal implant devices. Successfully obtained summary judgment of infringement for one of four patents asserted.