Craig D. Leavell
Professional Profile
Mr. Leavell is a Partner is Kirkland’s Chicago office. His practice focuses on patent infringement litigation, but also includes litigation and counseling on a variety of intellectual property and technology matters, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, unfair trade practices, and contract disputes.
Mr. Leavell’s experience covers a broad range of technologies, including vehicle navigation and infotainment systems, telematics systems, fiber optic communication and distribution equipment, modems, semiconductor designs and processing techniques, medical devices, diesel engines and fuel systems, video coding/decoding software and hardware, liquid crystal displays, CDMA and GSM wireless telecommunication devices, ambiguous keyboard technology, ergonomics, CMOS imagers, microprocessor controlled circuit breakers, computerized automotive wheel alignment and balancing equipment, railroad car designs, and golf equipment.
Mr. Leavell has significant experience in all aspects of counseling and litigation on behalf of both intellectual property owners and accused infringers, including Markman claim construction hearings, jury trials, appellate arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, preliminary injunction hearings, mediations, arbitrations, settlement negotiations and agreements, licensing campaigns, pre-litigation infringement analyses and investigations, and re-examination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Representative Matters
Kruse Technology Partnership v. General Motors Corporation; Kruse Technology Partnership v. DMAX Ltd.; Kruse Technology Partnership v. General Motors Company (C.D. Cal.) Case Nos. 08-1452, 09-486 and 09-4970 (Cases alleging infringement of three patents by Duramax diesel engines; cases pending.)
ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corporation (D. Minn.) Case No. 08 cv 5222 (Claims and counterclaim of infringement of patents relating to fiber optics distribution equipment. Case settled.)
Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. DIRECTV, Inc. et al. (E.D. Va.) Case No. 08-1009 (Allegations of infringement of four patents relating to dial-up modem technology by satellite television set-top boxes. After plaintiff dropped two of the four patents, we obtained a complete victory on the remaining two patents, including summary judgments in our client’s favor of (1) non-infringement of both patents as to all asserted claims and all accused products, (2) summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims in one of the two remaining patents, and (3) summary judgment that our client’s products are already licensed through their suppliers’ licenses to the asserted patents. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal.)
Tendler Cellular, Inc. v. ATX Group, Inc., Cross Country Automotive Services, Inc. et al.(E.D. Tex.) Case No. 06-CV-560 (Allegations of patent infringement against automotive telematics. Case settled.)
LG Electronics Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., Clarion Co., Ltd., Xanavi Informatics et al. (E.D. Tex.) Case No. 07-CV-90 (Alleged infringement of patents by automotive audio-visual equipment, automotive navigation equipment and handheld personal navigation devices. Case settled.)
Fernandez Innovative Technologies, L.L.C. v. General Motors Corporation, OnStar Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. et al., (N.D. Ill.) Case No. 07 CV 1397 (As lead counsel, obtained a successful Markman claim construction ruling on behalf of clients General Motors, OnStar and Toyota, leading patentee to stipulate to judgment of non-infringement. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.)
Visto Corporation v. Research In Motion Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) Case No. 07-CV-375 (Alleged infringement of patents by BlackBerry® system and solution. Case settled.)
Ford Motor Company v. Navistar International Transportation Corporation and International Truck and Engine Corporation (Circuit Court, State of Michigan) Case No. 07-080067 (Alleged breaches of automotive supply contract. Case settled.)
ArrivalStar S.A. et al. v. United Air Lines, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) Case No. 07-CV-2385 (Alleged infringement of patent by Easyupdate Flight Notification system. Case settled.)
Rauckman Utility Products, LLC. v. Tyco Electronic Logistics AG (S.D. Ill.) Case No. 06-133 (Represented Tyco in response to a declaratory judgment alleging invalidity and noninfringement of Tyco’s patent relating to protective shields for power distribution equipment. Case settled.)
Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Harman International Industries, Inc. (D. Mass.) Case No. 05-CV-10990 (Defended a claim for patent infringement against client’s automotive navigation systems. Case settled.)
Guardian Industries Corporation v. Dell, Inc. et al. (D. Del.) Case No. 05-27 (Successful industry-wide assertion of client Guardian Industries’ portfolio of patents relating to improving optical characteristics of liquid crystal displays through the use of retardation films.)
Ingenient Technologies, Inc. v. PacketVideo Corporation et al. (N.D. Ill.) Case No. 05-C-0540 (Successful assertion of claims for copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract relating to multimedia DSPs for consumer electronics.)
Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L, v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Research In Motion Ltd. et al. (D. Del.) Case No. 03-1047. After obtaining a successful Markman claim construction ruling on behalf of clients Research In Motion and T-Mobile USA, the patentee stipulated to judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s claim construction and judgment of non-infringement. See InPro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al., 450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Guardian Industries Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (D. Del.) Case No. 03-934 (Successful industry-wide assertion of client Guardian Industries’ portfolio of patents relating to improving optical characteristics of liquid crystal displays through the use of retardation films.)
Snap-on Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Hunter Engineering Company (E.D. Wisc) Consolidated Case Nos. 98-C-369, 00-C-929, 98-C-837, 00-C-1511,02-CV-1029 (Defended claims of infringement of patents relating to computerized automotive service equipment. Case settled during final pre-trial stage)
National Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway, Ltd. et al. (E.D. Pa.) Case No. 02-CV-6877 (Obtained preliminary injunction on behalf of patentee National Steel Car in case relating to patented railroad car design.)
Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd. v. Siemens AG, Infineon Technologies AG et al. (E.D. Va) Case No. 00-396 (At expert discovery phase of litigation, obtained dismissal with prejudice of patent infringement claims brought against clients Siemens and Infineon relating to semiconductor fabrication processes.)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Sturman Industries, Inc., et al. (C.D. Ill.) Case No. 99-CV-1201. Case was tried in 2003, resulting in judgment for client on inventorship claims, and re-tried in 2005 resulting in judgment for client on the trade secret and conversion claims, and a $1.00 verdict on breach of contract claims. Case later settled on confidential terms. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Sturman Industries, Inc., et al., 387 F. 3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2906 (2005).
Kahn v. General Motors Corporation (Fed. Cir.) Case No. 99-1335 (Successfully defended an appeal by plaintiff seeking to overturn district court’s denial of post-trial collateral attack on final judgment of patent noninfringment.)
Mosel Vitelic Corporation v. Micron Technology, Inc. (D. Del.) Case No. 98-449 (Alleged infringement by DRAM memory chips. Case settled.)
Other Distinctions
Named "2008 Illinois Rising Star," by Super Lawyers magazine, a publication of Key Professional Media, Inc.
Courts
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Trial Bar Member
United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
