Our Professionals


Court Admissions

Bar Associations

Theodore Stevenson, III

Dallas Office
Dallas Office

300 Crescent Court
Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201
TEL: 214.978.4974 FAX: 214.978.4044

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 infringement and technology cases for over 20 years. Ted has extensive federal trial experience, having won courtroom victories in patent cases involving diverse technologies such as wireless networking, 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 and described as a "fantastic trial lawyer."  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 LawyersTexas Lawyer Magazine has 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 and Managing IP Magazine recognized Ted as an "IP Star."

In addition to patent cases, Ted has tried cases, both to juries and to the court, for trade secret, breach of contract, securities fraud, product liability, death penalty habeas corpus, and computer software non-performance.  Ted enjoys teaching trial advocacy, which he does as a faculty member of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and also as a presenter at legal seminars.

Representative Matters

  • Ericsson v. Intel. Ted represented Ericsson in a jury trial against Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Netgear, and DLink, in a patent infringement case involving 802.11 wifi standard essential patents.  The jury returned a verdict of infringement in favor of Ericsson on three patents and awarded a royalty.  Following the jury trial, the Court held a bench trial to adjudicate defendants' assertions of FRAND violations, after which it ruled in favor of Ericsson finding no FRAND violation.  The Court entered judgment and the case is currently on appeal.
  • 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. 
  •  Ericsson v. Samsung.  Ted represented Ericsson in its patent infringement dispute against Samsung comprising two ITC actions and two district court actions.  After two ITC trials in Fall 2013 (one offensive and on defensive), involving standard essential and implementation patents related to LTE, WCDMA, GSM/GPRS/EDGE, and 802.11 wireless technology, the case settled favorably on the eve of the date for the ITC to release its initial determination.

  • Summit 6 v. Samsung. Ted represented Summit 6 in a patent infringement suit against Samsung asserting infringement of a photo pre-processing patent used in Samsung phones.  Following a jury trial in the Northern District of Texas, the jury found infringement.  The Court conducted a separate inequitable conduct trial and rejected Samsung's allegations of inequiable conduct.  Judgment was entered and the the case is on appeal.
  • 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.
  • 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.  
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 and bifurcated trial on the issue of alleged FRAND violations. 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 a jury 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.  
  • 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

  • Awarded Texas "IP Litigator of the Year" by Managing IP (2016)
  • Awarded the International Law Office (ILO) and Lexology 2014 "Client Choice Award" for Texas Patent Litigation.
  • Recognized in the 2015 and 2016 editions of "Best Lawyers in America" for Litigation: Bet-the-Company, Commercial, Intellectual Property, Patent, and Trade Secrets.
  • Ranked as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA. In the 2014 edition, he is described as a “fantastic trial lawyer.” The publication also notes that he is a "patent litigator and attorney who has secured excellent results for clients operating in the fields of life sciences, mechanical and electrical engineering."
  • Named the Best Lawyers 2014 Dallas Bet-the-Company Litigation "Lawyer of the Year."
  • Recommended as a leading patent litigator by The Legal 500: "very smart and dedicated" (2014); "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 issues." (2013).
  • Named "IP Star" by Managing IP (2013-2015).
  • Named the Best Lawyers 2012 Dallas Litigation - Patent "Lawyer of the Year".
  • Named a "National IP Litigation Star" and "Texas Litigation Star" by Benchmark Plaintiff.
  • Ranked as an Intellectual Property "Litigation Star" by Benchmark Litigation.
  • Ranked as a leading patent litigator in Texas by IAM Patent 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners (2014).
  • Listed in Super Lawyers every year since 2005.
  • Recognized as one of the "Top 100" lawyers in Texas by Super Lawyers.
  • Ranked in Best Lawyers in America as a leading lawyer in Litigation: Bet-the-Company, Commercial, Intellectual Property, Patent, and Trade Secrets.
  • Listed in Lawdragon 3000.
  • Listed as Texas Lawyer "Go-To Counsel" for intellectual property.


Press Releases

Seminars & Speaking Engagements