Eric D. Hayes is a first-chair experienced trial lawyer and partner in Kirkland’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group. In the past year, Eric tried an ITC case, litigated many federal district court cases and handled multiple IPR proceedings. Over the course of his career, Eric has played a lead role in over 30 cases that went to judgment, including many jury trials to verdict. He has tried cases before juries and judges in Federal Court, at the ITC and the PTAB. Eric is known for his presence in the courtroom. While representing many of the world’s most innovative Fortune companies, Eric conducts his complex litigation cases in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Eric’s technical and design patent experience spans many diverse industries ranging from computers and wireless telecommunications to medical devices and pharmaceuticals. Eric has demonstrated an ability to present a myriad of complex technologies in simple and understandable terms to both judges and juries.
Intellectual Ventures II v. Mitsuba Corp. et al. (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1073): In 2018, Eric first-chaired an ITC case against IV. Eric successfully argued and won every claim term in dispute with respect to the IV patents asserted against Mitsuba resulting in IV terminating with prejudice both the ITC and related district court cases.
Corning Optical Communications LLC v. Panduit Corp. (D. Del. 2016): In 2018, Eric handled a number of instituted IPRs at the PTAB. In his representation of the patent owner, Eric convinced multiple PTAB panels to not cancel the instituted claims, counter to the current trends.
Fundamental Innovation Systems Int’l LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2017): In 2018, Eric and a team of Kirkland attorneys successfully defended Samsung in a patent infringement case. Eric lead a team focused on damages. The case settled on favorable terms shortly before trial.
In re Avaya, Inc. et al. (S.D. NY 17-10089 (SMB) 2017): In 2017, Eric and a team of Kirkland attorneys successfully defended Avaya, Inc. in a trade secret misappropriation case in which the Court issued a very favorable ruling for Avaya limiting any potential damages in the case.
Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corp. et al. (N.D. Ill. 2012): In 2017, Eric and a team of Kirkland attorneys defended Sears and Apex Tool Group in a patent litigation jury trial that ended in late May. After trial, the district Judge construed the asserted patent claims in Sears and ATG’s favor, resulting in a significant victory for Eric’s clients.
Advanced Orthopaedic Solutions, Inc. v. Zimmer Biomet, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2014): In 2015, Eric led a team of Kirkland attorneys to successfully file IPRs challenging AOS’s patents related to intramedullary nails, and stay the district court litigation. After institution of the IPRs, the parties settled the case.
GE Lighting Solutions LLC v. Lighting Science Group Corp. et al. (N.D. Ohio 2012): In 2015, Eric and a team of Kirkland attorneys obtained a summary judgment victory on behalf of Lighting Science Group. LSG successfully moved to invalidate both of GE’s patents as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. In 2016, Eric and a team of Kirkland attorneys handled GE’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of one GE patent.
Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. et al. v. NVIDIA et al. (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-941): In 2015, Eric together with a team of Kirkland lawyers won a significant ITC trial victory for Samsung. The ITC Administrative Law Judge found that NVIDIA infringed the client’s patents. Eric was integral in the significant finding by the ALJ that NVIDIA’s chips infringed Samsung’s patents.
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 Supreme Court Alice decision. Judge Staton granted Hill’s motion invalidating all the asserted claims. In 2014, Eric played an integral role in handling the appeal to the Federal Circuit. In 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of Hemopet’s patents.
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 Stryker witnesses.
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.
(It's All In A Parenthetical) An Analysis of the FSC Provisions As Applied in Microsoft v. Commissioner, 55 Tax Law. 985 (Summer 2002)
Recognized as an "Illinois Rising Star" by Super Lawyers magazine (2013 and 2014)
Memberships & Affiliations
U.S. Naval Academy Blue & Gold Officer
Admissions & Qualifications
Registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
- Georgetown University Law CenterJ.D.cum laudeLaw Journal
- United States Naval AcademyB.S., Mechanical Engineeringwith DistinctionPhi Kappa Phi, Tau Beta Pi, Pi Tau Sigma