Kyle Mooney is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group, focusing on patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes, including copyright, trade secrets, and trademark disputes.
Mr. Mooney represents clients in a wide variety of fields, including semiconductors, LEDs, optical storage and scanning, imaging and display technologies, networking and communications technologies, automotive components, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. He has litigated significant IP disputes between direct competitors, as well as patent infringement actions brought by non-practicing entities. Mr. Mooney’s IP practice has included jury trials, bench trials, ITC proceedings, and mediations.
Mr. Mooney has also represented clients in connection with internal and government investigations. Additionally, he has substantial pro bono experience, including arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and New York Appellate Division in habeas and criminal appeals, and a bench trial in the Southern District of New York in a case involving the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Mr. Mooney received his J.D. from New York University School of Law, where he was a staff editor for the Environmental Law Journal.
Microscan Systems, Inc. v. Cognex Corporation(Southern District of New York) Won a jury verdict of infringement, validity, and reasonable royalty damages for plaintiff Microscan in a patent case related to high-end barcode scanners.
Carl Zeiss AG et al. v. Nikon Corp et al.(Central District of California; ITC) Represented Nikon in a patent infringement action relating to digitial camera technology.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Cinram International et al.(Southern District of New York) Represented Universal Music Group Manufacturing & Logistics and Entertainment Distribution Company in a patent infringement action relating to CD technology at trial and in post-trial proceedings.
Web Telephony v. Avaya(Eastern District of Texas) Represented Avaya in a patent infringement action relating to Internet-enabled unified communications systems.
Pioneer v. Samsung SDI et al.(Eastern District of Texas) Represented Pioneer in a patent infringement action against Samsung relating to plasma televisions. Won jury verdict of willful infringement and substantial damages award.
Zoetics Inc. et al. v. Yahoo! Inc.(District of Delaware) Represented Yahoo! in a patent infringement action involving anti-spam technology for email software.
Philips v. Lighting Science Group(District of Massachusetts) Represented Lighting Science Group in a patent infringement action relating to LED technology.
Nucap Industries v. Robert Bosch LLC et al.(Northern District of Illinois) Representing Nucap in a trade secret and copyright action against Bosch relating to disc brake components.
CCP Systems AG v. Samsung Electronics et al. (District of New Jersey)Represented CCP Systems in a copyright infringement action against Samsung Electronics relating to printer firmware.
Goodman v. Fujitsu Ltd.(Southern District of New York) Represented Fujitsu in a patent infringement action relating to Mobile FCRAM.
Zond LLC v. Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. et al.(District of Massachusetts) Represented Fujitsu Semiconductor in patent litigation concerning plasma processes in semiconductor fabrication.
Gordium Innovations LLC v. Fujitsu Frontech North America, Inc.(District of Delaware) Represented Fujitsu Frontech in patent litigation concerning network repeater hubs.
Alcorn Communications LLC v. Marketwire, Inc.(Southern District of New York) Represented Marketwire (a/k/a Marketwired) in patent litigation concerning Internet distribution of news releases.
BillingNetwork Patent, Inc. v. 2ndSIte Inc. d/b/a FreshBooks(Middle District of Florida) Represented Freshbooks in patent litigation concerning cloud-based accounting and billing services.
Philips Lighting et al. v. Deco Enterprises, Inc. (District of Massachusetts)Represented Deco in patent litigation concerning LED lighting technology.
ANDA LitigationRepresented major generic manufacturers in ANDA litigation, including manufacturers of sedatives, direct thrombin inhibitors, and psychostimulant prodrugs.
Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.