Kevin Schubert

Kevin Schubert is a principal in McKool Smith's New York office.  He represents patent owners and defendants in high-stakes patent litigations and has helped clients obtain over $1 billion over the last 17 years.

For the past three years, IAM has named Kevin to the IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists list, describing him as having a “stellar reputation among his peers” and having secured “major wins for big name clients when the stakes are at their highest.”

Recently, Kevin has been the lead attorney in patent litigations for clients SEVEN Networks and Clear Imaging Research against leading smartphone manufacturers over telecommunications and camera technology, for an inventor of a pet product in a dispute with a patent assignee, and for ETRI in a dispute against Snap Inc. related to the video coding space. 

Kevin was the lead technical attorney for defendant Hillman in Hy-Ko Products Company LLC v. The Hillman Group, Inc. (E.D. Tex.), where he examined and cross-examined several witnesses regarding key duplication technology at trial in 2022.   Kevin also helped obtain trial verdicts of $145 million and $85 million for client Wi-LAN in Wi-LAN v. Apple (S.D. Cal.), respectively, in a patent case related to 4G Voice over LTE (“VoLTE”) technology which concluded in 2022.

Kevin frequently writes and speaks about IP.  He is also is an active participant with the Licensing Executive Society (“LES”) and moderates a panel of patent licensing executives at the annual event each year, most recently in April 2026 in Dublin, Ireland.

Before law school, Kevin worked as a patent examiner in Washington, D.C., at the USPTO where he examined more than 100 patent applications.

District courts:

• ETRI.  ETRI v. Snap Inc. (D. Del., pending).  Lead counsel for plaintiff ETRI in 3-patent case related to infringement of video coding patents and HEVC.
• Dolby.  Dolby v. Snap Inc. (D. Del., pending).  Represent Dolby in 9-patent case related to video coding patents and AV1, HEVC, and AVC.
• Vervain.  Vervain, LLC v. Phison Electronics Corporation, Kingston (W.D. Tex., pending).  Represent plaintiff Vervain in separate actions against Phison and Kingston on patents related to the NAND flash space.
• SEVEN Networks.  SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC (N.D. Tex., concluded 2024).  Lead counsel for plaintiff SEVEN Networks in a patent litigation suit involving 9 patents related to Doze mode and other features in the Android operating system owned by SEVEN Networks.
• Hillman.  Hy-Ko Products Co. v. Hillman Group, Inc. (E.D. Tex., concluded 2022).  Lead technical counsel for defendant Hillman in a patent case related to key copying technology.  The jury returned a verdict of $16 million for Hy-Ko, a fraction of Hy-Ko’s demand.
• AT&T.  IPCom, GmbH & Co. KG v. AT&T Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex., concluded 2022).  Represented defendant AT&T in action accusing certain cellular 3G and 4G base station equipment of patent infringement.
• Wi-LAN. Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc. (S.D. Cal., concluded 2022). Represented plaintiff Wi-LAN in a patent litigation suit on patents related to Voice over LTE (“VoLTE”) technology.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of Wi-LAN for $145.1 million in 2018 and a separate verdict of $85 million in 2020.
• Clear Imaging.  Clear Imaging Research, LLC v. Samsung (E.D. Tex., concluded 2021).  Represented plaintiff Clear Imaging in a patent litigation suit on six patents owned by Clear Imaging related to camera and digital image processing technology.
• SEVEN Networks.  SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple Inc. (E.D. Tex., concluded 2021).  Represented plaintiff SEVEN Networks in a patent litigation suit involving a number of Apple mobile products and services alleged to infringe 16 patents owned by SEVEN Networks.
• BMC Software. BMC Software Inc. v. ServiceNow Inc. (E.D. Tex., concluded 2014). Represented plaintiff BMC Software in a patent infringement action involving IT management solutions.
• Realtime Data. Realtime Data LLC v. CME (S.D.N.Y., concluded 2012). Represented plaintiff Realtime Data in patent infringement litigations involving data compression technology.

Arbitration

• [Inventor] v. [Patent Assignee] [AAA, concluded 2025].  Lead counsel for an inventor of a pet product in a dispute before the American Arbitration Association with a patent assignee.

• Named among the IAM 300: World's Leading IP Strategist (2024-2026)
• Recognized in Best Lawyers in America as "Ones to Watch" for Commercial and Patent, 2021-2025
• Recognized as a "Rising Star" in New York by Super Lawyers, 2015-2018
• Named among the IAM 300: Global Leading Strategist (2025)
• Ranked as a "US City Elite" for New York by Legal 500, 2025
• Recognized in the guide to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global IP Lawyers (2026)
• Recognized in the guide to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America (2027)