Rudy Kim chairs the Litigation Department in the firm’s Palo Alto office and is a member of the Firmwide Diversity Strategy Committee. Mr. Kim has nearly 20 years of experience representing clients in high-stakes IP and technology related litigation in federal district and appellate courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). He has also successfully tried criminal jury cases with the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.
His matters have involved a wide range of complex, cutting edge technologies, including autonomous vehicles, computer hardware and software, consumer electronics, data storage, network security, semiconductors, wireless communication, and medical devices. Representative clients include Autodesk, Freescale (now NXP Semiconductors), Fujitsu, HP, Logitech, Netgear, Palo Alto Networks, Silicon Image (now Lattice Semiconductor), TSMC, and Uber.
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. In 2013, he was selected as a Global Fellow by the Federal Circuit Bar Association, a program limited to senior IP and patent attorneys who have a strong international focus in their practice and who have achieved recognition within their own organizations as future leaders. He is also recognized as a leading patent lawyer by Who’s Who Legal: Patents 2016.
Mr. Kim received his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center and 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. For the past five years, he has taught trial advocacy classes at Stanford Law School.
Mr. Kim serves as a Vice Chair of the Patent Litigation Committee of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. He is a past president of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley and a member of the Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association, the San Francisco Bay Area Intellectual Property American Inn of Court, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, and the International Association of Korean Lawyers.
Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al.(Northern District of California). Defended Uber in a high-profile trade secrets and patent infringement case against Waymo, Google’s autonomous vehicle subsidiary. Successfully defended Uber against far-reaching motion for preliminary injunction and secured dismissal of all patent infringement claims prior to favorable settlement.
Cohen v. TSMC, Huawei, et al.(Northern District of California). Representing defendants in multi-patent case relating to semiconductor fabrication technology.
GBAS v. Autodesk (District of Massachusetts). Defending Autodesk in multi-patent case relating to software activation technology.
Finjan v. Palo Alto Networks(Northern District of California). Representing Palo Alto Networks in a multi-patent case involving Internet security-related technology. Successfully moved to stay case after initiating inter partes review (IPR) of asserted patents.
Realtime v. Fujitsu America, Inc.(Eastern District of Texas). Representing Fujitsu in multi-patent case involving data compression technology. Successfully moved to stay case pending inter partes review (IPR) of asserted patents.
Uniloc v. Autodesk(Eastern District of Texas). Successfully defended Autodesk in a patent case involving computer-assisted design (CAD) technology. Initiated covered business method (CBM) challenges to asserted patents, resulting in all asserted claims being found unpatentable by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
MediaTek v. Freescale(Northern District of California). Successfully defended Freescale through trial in a multi-patent litigation involving semiconductor bus architecture, arbitration, and power-management technology. Successfully secured summary judgment and judgments as a matter of law (JMOLs) of non-infringement on several claims prior to global settlement of related actions.
Pherah v. Autodesk(Eastern District of Texas). Successfully defended Autodesk in litigation involving a patent directed to product knowledge management. Obtained a “walk away” dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims against Autodesk.
Data Speed v. Autodesk (District of Delaware).Successfully defended Autodesk in litigation involving memory mass storage device technology. Obtained a “walk away” dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims against Autodesk.
Wi3 v. Netgear(Western District of New York). Successfully defended Netgear in a patent case involving digital network technology.
Rothschild v. Logitech(Eastern District of Texas). Successfully defended Logitech in a patent case involving data processing and home automation systems.
Marking Object Virtualization Intelligence v. Fujitsu Ltd., et al.(Eastern District of Texas). Successfully defended Fujitsu in multi-patent case involving digital rights management (DRM) technology.
Fastenetix, LLC v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. (District of New Jersey). Represented Fastenetix in litigation to enforce patents covering spinal implant devices. Successfully obtained a highly favorable Markman ruling prior to settlement. As reported in Medtronic’s 10-Q filed on December 3, 2008, Medtronic paid a total of $125 million cash, which included payment for past damages and the purchase of patents.
Applied Biosystems Group v. Illumina, Inc. (Northern District of California). Represented Applied Biosystems in litigation involving DNA-sequencing products. Participated in pre-trial preparations. Resulted in jury verdict of non-infringement and invalidity in favor of Applied Biosystems.
Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment, Inc., et al.(Northern District of California). Represented 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. Resulted in favorable settlement prior to trial.
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Tessera in an action involving multiple patents related to semiconductor chip packages. Appeared and argued on behalf of Tessera at a pre-trial Markman hearing, which resulted in favorable Markman order. Part of team that helped secure up-front payment of $80 million from Micron and Infineon to settle this and related offensive action.
IpVenture, Inc. v. ProStar Computer, Inc. et al.(Central District of California, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Represented IpVenture in suit to enforce patents covering thermal and power-management technology for laptop computers. Successfully appealed case to the Federal Circuit, which resulted in a published opinion. Case ultimately settled with entry of a consent judgment in favor of IpVenture.
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 Electronics, Inc. v. Precision Engineering Industries (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.
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.