- J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 1988. Order of the Coif. Editorial Bd. of Virginia Law Review
- B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University, 1985
- The U.S. Supreme Court
- The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal, Fifth, Fourth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits
- The U.S District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of Texas
- The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- American Bar Association
- Federal Circuit Bar Association
- Dallas Bar Association
- Eastern District of Texas Bar Associations
Ted Stevenson is a Principal in the Dallas office of McKool Smith. Ted is a trial lawyer and registered patent attorney who has been focused on patent cases for nearly 20 years. Ted has extensive federal trial experience, having won courtroom victories in patent cases involving diverse technologies such as balloon angioplasty catheters, integrated circuits, prepaid calling cards, drilling rigs, and enterprise software. Ted also has tried and won non-patent cases alleging trade secret violations, trade dress infringement, and software performance. Between September 2007 and August 2009 Ted tried five patent cases, three of which resulted in nine figure verdicts in favor of his clients.
Ted is consistently recognized as one of the best patent litigators in the country. He was named the 2014 Dallas Bet-the-Company Litigation "Lawyer of the Year" and the 2012 Dallas Patent Litigation "Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers. Texas Lawyer Magazine recognized Ted as one of the five “go-to” intellectual property litigators in the state. Ted is consistently named by Chambers USA and Best Lawyers in America in the areas of intellectual property litigation, commercial litigation, and bet-the-company litigation. Texas Super Lawyers consistently ranks Ted among its top-100 lawyers in Texas.
Prior to focusing on patent litigation in 1995, Ted had an active trial docket. Ted has tried cases, both to juries and to the court, for securities fraud, product liability, death penalty habeas corpus, computer software non-performance, divorce, and landlord tenant. Ted enjoys teaching trial advocacy, which he does regularly as a faculty member of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and also as a presenter at legal seminars.
- Ericsson v. Intel. Ted represented Ericsson in a jury trial against Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Netgear, DLink, and Belkin in a patent infringement case involving 802.11 technology. The jury returned a verdict of infringement in favor of Ericsson on three patents.
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific. Ted won one of the largest jury verdicts in the history of the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of firm client Medtronic asserting patents covering the design of balloon angioplasty catheters and polymers used to build the products. The case settled pending appeal in 2009.
- Summit 6 v. Samsung. Ted represented Summit 6 in a suit against Samsung asserting infringement of a photo pre-processing patent. Following a jury trial in the Northern District of Texas, the jury found infringement.
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Cordis. Ted represented Medtronic in a series of patent infringement suits related to coronary stent design. These suits, which have since been settled, included a district court infringement case in which Medtronic asserted its stent patents against Cordis as well as five separate arbitration proceedings adjudicating the terms of various license agreements between the parties.
- Halliburton v. BJ Services Company. Ted represented Halliburton in an arbitration against Baker Hughes and BJ Services alleging infringement of several patents covering hydrajet fracturing of oil and gas wells. Halliburton received a favorable award from the arbitration panel.
- Weatherford International v. Halliburton. Ted represented Halliburton in a suit in which Weatherford alleged infringement of patents covering method of forming composite parts for use in downhole tools, such as frac plugs, bridge plugs, and packers. The case settled on favorable terms.
- Ericsson v. Harris. Following a two-week trial in Sherman, Texas, Ted won a patent infringement verdict for Ericsson in a case involving telecommunications integrated circuits and semiconductor fabrication patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed both the jury verdict awarding full damages over lost profits and a permanent injunction against the defendant in 2005.
- Ericsson v. Samsung. Ted represented Ericsson and Sony Ericsson in a 2007 dispute against Samsung involving more than 50 standard essential GSM and WCDMA cellular patents. The litigation included simultaneous proceedings pending in the Eastern District of Texas, the International Trade Commission, and numerous European courts. Before the infringement trial began, Ted persuaded the Court to adopt a novel procedure of having an expedited trial on the issue of the reasonable royalty rate. This procedural ruling helped derive a favorable early settlement for Ericsson.
- DataTreasury v. Sun Trust, et al. Ted represented Sun Trust Bank as defendant accused of infringing a patent related to check imaging and archiving. The case settled on favorable terms in the middle of trial shortly before the cross examination of the inventor was to begin.
- DataTreasury v. EDS. Ted successfully defended EDS against patent infringement claims against EDS's Check 21 offering. Shortly before the 2005 trial, in the face of a substantial validity challenge to its patents, the plaintiff nonsuited its claims and gave EDS an irrevocable covenant-not-to-sue.
- Versata Software v. SAP. Ted represented Versata, an enterprise software company located in Austin, TX against SAP, the world's leading enterprise software company in a case alleging infringement of enterprise software patents. At trial in 2009, the jury found Versata's patents infringed and awarded a nine-figure damages verdict. Following verdict, the district court granted a new trial on damages as a result of changes in the law related to apportionment in damages calculations. On retrial, the jury awarded Versata more than twice the original verdict, and held SAP’s asserted design-around infringed. The district court entered judgment for damages and awarded an injunction. The case is currently on appeal.
- TGIP v. AT&T and MCI. Ted represented TGIP in winning a nine-figure jury verdict of willful infringement against AT&T following a two-week trial in Beaumont, Texas, in 2007. The patents at issue covered prepaid calling card database technology. Defendant AT&T eventually settled the case while it was pending appeal, following entry of judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement. In addition to the settlement by AT&T, co-defendant MCI settled during the second day of trial.
- Visto v. Seven Networks. Ted won a jury verdict in Marshall, Texas, in 2006, against Seven Networks based on patents covering push e-mail systems for “smart phones.” The jury awarded a 20% royalty and found willful infringement. The district court entered a permanent injunction as well as enhanced damages.
- Bedrock v. Google. Ted won a jury verdict in 2011 against Google for Bedrock, who asserted a software patent covering a method for improving the speed and efficiency of web servers. Following a six-day trial in Tyler, Texas, the jury found the patent infringed, valid, and awarded a royalty to Bedrock. The case then settled prior to the entry of judgment.
- Visto v. Research in Motion.Ted represented Visto against RIM in a number of U.S. and foreign patent litigation matters. After Visto's patents were confirmed in a reexamination proceeding, RIM settled with Visto prior to the start of a jury trial.
- Svedala-Reedrill v. Drilltech. Ted won a jury verdict of infringement for Svedala-Reedrill following a two-week patent trial involving blast-hole drilling technology. The jury awarded full lost profits, enhanced damages, attorney fees, and a permanent injunction, which were all affirmed on appeal.
- Wyble v. Gulf South Pipeline. Ted represented Gulf South, an interstate natural gas pipeline, against a class of landowners seeking to have a court-appointed master take control of the pipeline system due to alleged violations of the Pipeline Safety Act. After the Eastern District of Texas entered a landmark ruling denying the plaintiffs standing to bring most of their claims, the case settled on favorable terms for the pipeline company.
- Golden Hour v. emsCharts. Ted represented defendant, emsCharts, in an inequitable conduct trial in 2009. After a bench trial, the Court found the plaintiff's patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and entered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Ted's client.
- i2 v. SAP. Ted represented i2 Technologies, a pioneer in supply chain management software, as plaintiff against SAP asserting infringement of seven patents, in 2008. SAP settled shortly after the Markman hearing.
- Pioneer v. Omni Financial. Ted successfully defended Omni Financial, a national lending company, against allegations of trade secret and trade dress infringement in 2002. Following a one-week bench trial in Kansas City, the court found in favor of Ted’s client on all contested issues and entered a take-nothing judgment.
- Trans Texas v. Pacific Investment Management Co. Ted successfully defended PIMCO against allegations that the company had infringed a patent covering interest rate hedging strategies for bond funds.
- ReedHycalog v. US Synthetic and Halliburton. US Synthetic and Halliburton called on Ted to defend the companies against patent infringement claims filed by ReedHycalog based on four patents related to leached diamond drill-bit cutting elements. The case settled favorably for Ted’s clients shortly after the pretrial conference in 2008.
- Vari-Lite Enforcement Cases. Ted represented Vari-Lite, the company that created the world's first computer controlled entertainment light, in a campaign asserting its pioneering patents against industry competitors. Ted won a preliminary injunction in Vari-Lite v. Martin Entertainment that prevented sales of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infringing lighting systems. Ultimately, Vari-Lite settled its litigation matters with Martin, High End Systems, Coemar, Clay Paky, and other infringers on very favorable terms.
Professional & Community Activities
- National Institute of Trial Advocacy
- American Intellectual Property Law Association
- Federal Circuit Bar Association
- Master, Barbara Lynn IP Inn Of Court
Awards & Recognition
- Named the Best Lawyers 2014 Dallas Bet-the-Company Litigation "Lawyer of the Year"
- Recommended as a leading patent litigator by The Legal 500 (2013): "a clever attorney who is able to identify the key issues in even the most
complex cases early on and prepare the right strategy for winning on those
- Named "IP Star" by Managing IP (2013)
- Named the Best Lawyers 2012 Dallas Litigation - Patent "Lawyer of the Year"
- Recommended as a leading U.S. patent litigator by Legal 500
- Named a "National IP Litigation Star" and "Texas Litigation Star" by Benchmark Plaintiff
- Ranked as an Intellectual Property "Litigation Star" by Benchmark Litigation
- Ranked in Chambers USA as a leading intellectual property lawyer in Texas
- Listed in Super Lawyers every year since 2005
- Named in the Top 100 Texas Super Lawyers
- Ranked in Best Lawyers in America as a leading lawyer in Litigation: Bet-the-Company, Commercial, Intellectual Property, and Patent
- Listed in Lawdragon 3000
- Listed as Texas Lawyer "Go-To Counsel" for intellectual property
- September 9, 2013
- August 15, 2013
- June 18, 2013
- May 24, 2013
- April 15, 2013
- January 18, 2013
- November 2012
- September 10, 2012
- August 27, 2012
- July 19, 2012
- July 1, 2012
- "Wyeth, Cordis Stent Patents Are Invalid, Judge Says" McKool Smith client Medtronic wins summary judgment in patent defense caseJanuary 20, 2012
- November 22, 2011
- October 5, 2011
- September 13, 2011
- September 2, 2010
- McKool Smith's Intellectual Property and White Collar Defense Practices Recognized in 2010 Chambers USA rankingsJune 10, 2010
- March 29, 2010
- August 28, 2009
- August 6, 2009
- March 16, 2009
- October 13, 2008
- September 15, 2008
- August 1, 2008
- October 10, 2007
- October 1, 2007
- October 9, 2006
- July 1, 2013
- June 27, 2013
- May 1, 2013
- April 5, 2013
- August 28, 2009
- June 27, 2008
- May 27, 2008
- May 14, 2008
- September 17, 2007
- Ericsson, Other Major Telecommunications Companies Prevail In Antitrust Lawsuit Over Wireless Technology StandardsSeptember 11, 2007
- July 27, 2007
- April 28, 2006