Eric D. Hayes - Partner

PDF Print Friendly Page
Eric D. Hayes

Download V-Card

Chicago
Phone: +1 312-862-2480
Fax: +1 312-862-2200
Overview News

Professional Profile

Eric D. Hayes is an experienced patent trial lawyer and partner in Kirkland’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group. Eric has played a lead role in over 20 cases that went to judgment, including six trials to verdict. He has tried cases before juries and judges in Federal Court and at the ITC. Eric is also active in IPR practice before the PTAB. He is known for his presence in the courtroom. While representing some of the world’s most innovative Fortune companies, Eric conducts his complex patent cases in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Eric’s technical experience spans many diverse industries ranging from computers and wireless telecommunications to medical devices and pharmaceuticals. The myriad of complex technologies with which Eric has worked includes: 3-D, ATM security, adhesives, antidepressant drugs, arterial catheters and stents, automotive parts including wiper systems, cable modems, cellular telephones, computer-machine interfaces, computer memory devices (SDRAM, DDR and DDR2 semiconductor chips), computer-user authentication protocols, digital cameras, gas turbines, genetically engineered pet foods, gesture recognition and digitizer technology for tablet computers, joint replacement implants, LCD TVs and monitors, LED lamps, MP3s, mobile software applications including real-time location based marketing apps, object oriented programming, optics, orthopedic devices, plastics, pulsed lavage medical devices, Smart phones and Wi-Max wireless telecommunication protocol.

Recent Successes

Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2012): In November 2014, Eric and a team of Kirkland attorneys obtained a victory in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive. Hemopet brought suit alleging Hill’s infringed four patents related to the design and development of pet food, and sought substantial monetary damages. Hill’s filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the new Supreme Court Alice decision. Judge Staton granted Hill’s motion invalidating all the asserted claims.

Intertrust Technologies Corporation v. A leading computer, mobile device and media player company (N.D. Cal. 2013): In 2013 and early 2014, Eric and a team of Kirkland lawyers represented a leading computer, mobile device and media player company in a patent litigation against Intertrust in the N.D. of California involving digital rights management and secure computing technology. Eric played a lead role in developing defenses that lead to a very favorable dismissal of the case.

Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer, Inc. (W.D. Mich. 2010): In 2013, Eric and a team of Kirkland lawyers represented Zimmer in a patent infringement litigation involving medical devices. The team tried the case in Judge Jonker’s courtroom to a western Michigan jury. Eric directed the examination of Zimmer’s technical expert witness, examined other Zimmer fact witnesses and cross-examined a key Stryker witness.

Kodak v. A leading computer, mobile device and media player company (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-831): In 2012, Eric and a team of Kirkland lawyers represented a leading computer, mobile device and media player company in a patent litigation against Kodak at the ITC involving digital camera technology. Just prior to filing for bankruptcy, Kodak sued the client for patent infringement. Eric played a lead role in developing the client’s defense strategies that led to a favorable dismissal. As reported in the press, Kodak agreed to sell its patent portfolio to a consortium of buyers, including the client.

Robert Bosch LLC v. Qualitor, Inc. (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-816): In 2012, Eric also represented various Qualitor, Inc. entities in a patent infringement matter at the ITC involving automotive parts including wiper systems. Eric and the team won summary determination of non-infringement of all eight asserted patents and summary determination of invalidity of four asserted patents. Chief Administrative Law Judge Bullock entered an Initial Determination of non-infringement and invalidity on the asserted patents.

NorthMobileTech LLC v. General Growth Properties, LLC (W.D. Wis. 2011): In 2012, Eric represented General Growth Properties, Inc. in a patent infringement suit in the W.D. of Wisconsin. The suit involved real-time location-based marketing mobile applications for both the iOS and Android platforms. Eric secured a favorable dismissal of the case at the summary determination stage and client GGP was pleased to have resolved the lawsuit.

A leading computer, mobile device and media player company v. High Tech. Computer Corp. (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-710): In 2011, Eric together with a Kirkland team of lawyers won a significant trial victory for a leading computer, mobile device and media player company. The ITC Administrative Law Judge found that High Tech. Computer Corp. (HTC) infringed two of the client’s patents. Eric was integral in the win against HTC and the Android platform in the ongoing Smartphone industry litigations.

Lucent Tech. Inc. v. Dell, Inc., Gateway, Inc., & Microsoft Corp. (S.D. Cal. 2002): In the representation of Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft, Eric and a team of Kirkland lawyers won multiple patent jury verdicts. The jury in the first trial found that Microsoft infringed two Alcatel-Lucent patents and awarded a judgment of $358 million. In 2011, in the second trial on patent damages only, the jury awarded a judgment of $70 million.

MedIdea, LLC v. Zimmer Holdings, et al. (E.D. Tex. 2009): Representing client Zimmer against MedIdea in a patent infringement litigation involving orthopedic implant medical device technology, Eric and a team of Kirkland lawyers were successful in transferring the case out of the Eastern District of Texas. The Federal Circuit granted Zimmer’s petition for a writ of mandamus, ordering the Eastern District of Texas to transfer the case. The ruling overturned the Eastern District’s denial of Zimmer’s motion to transfer. The case settled shortly thereafter.

Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1999): As part of a team of Kirkland lawyers, Eric represented GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) against Apotex in a patent infringement and antitrust litigation involving prescription pharmaceuticals. The representation led to a favorable settlement for GSK.


Representative Matters

  • MedIdea, LLC v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2014)

  • Intertrust Technologies Corporation v. A leading computer, mobile device and media player company (N.D. Cal. 2013)

  • GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lighting Science Group Corporation (N.D. Ohio 2012)

  • Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2012)

  • Kodak, Inc. v. A leading computer, mobile device and media player company (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-831)

  • Robert Bosch LLC v. Qualitor, Inc. (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-816)

  • NorthMobileTech LLC v. General Growth Properties, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2011)

  • Stryker, Corp. et al. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al. (W.D. Mich. 2010)

  • A leading computer, mobile device and media player company v. HTC (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-710)

  • A leading computer, mobile device and media player company v. Nokia, Corp., et al. (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-704)

  • MedIdea, LLC v. Zimmer Holdings, et al. (E.D. Tex. 2009)

  • Intel Corp. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal. 2008)

  • Motorola, Inc., et al. v. Rembrandt Technologies, LP (MDL 2007)

  • Dicam, Inc. v. United States Cellular Corp. & Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2007)

  • Alcatel USA Sourcing, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2006)

  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2006)

  • Ericsson, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-583)

  • Ericsson, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2006)

  • Agere Systems v. Broadcom, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2004)

  • IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com (E.D. Va. 2004)

  • Guardian Industries Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (D. Del. 2002)

  • Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Dell, Inc., Gateway, Inc., & Microsoft Corp. et al. (S.D. Cal. 2002)

  • Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company (3M) v. Barton Nelson (D. Minn. 2002)

  • Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1999)


Memberships & Affiliations

U.S. Naval Academy Blue & Gold Officer

Other Distinctions

Recognized as an "Illinois Rising Star" by Super Lawyers magazine (2013 and 2014)


Publications

(It's All In A Parenthetical) An Analysis of the FSC Provisions As Applied in Microsoft v. Commissioner, 55 Tax Law. 985 (Summer 2002)


Prior Experience

Registered Patent Agent - Patent Prosecution Firm (prosecution and opinion writing in various technology areas including medical devices, gas turbine engines, pumps and athletic shoes)

Patent Examiner - United States Patent & Trademark Office

Surface Warfare Officer - United States Navy

© 2014 Kirkland & Ellis LLP