Kevin Schubert is a principal in McKool Smith's New York office. He focuses his practice on patent litigation and has helped clients obtain over $1 billion in settlements and judgments over his career. For the past twelve years, he has represented both patent owners and defendants in high-stakes patent litigations throughout the United States. He also maintains an active Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) practice before the Patent Office.
Recently, Kevin managed the technical case (infringement and validity) for the patent owner in Clear Imaging Research, LLC v. Samsung (E.D. Tex.). The case related to camera and digital image processing technology and settled in May 2021. Kevin was also part of the team that obtained verdicts of $145 million and $85 million for client Wi-LAN in Wi-LAN v. Apple (S.D. Cal.) in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The case related to 4G Voice over LTE (“VoLTE”).
Kevin frequently writes and speaks about Intellectual Property. In 2019 and 2020, he co-authored articles about IPRs that were named in the top 10 most read articles for the publisher Law360. He is also is an active participant with the Licensing Executive Society (“LES”) and has moderated panels at the annual event each of the last three years.
Before law school, Kevin worked as a patent examiner in Washington, D.C., at the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the Cryptography department. There, he examined more than 100 patent applications.
Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit:
- Wi-LAN. Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2015-1256 (Fed. Cir.). Represented Wi-LAN in an appeal regarding the claim construction of several terms in patents related to 4G LTE technology.
AT&T. IPCom, GmbH & Co. KG v. AT&T Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex., pending). Represents defendant AT&T in action accusing certain cellular 3G and 4G base station equipment of patent infringement.
Clear Imaging. Clear Imaging Research, LLC v. Samsung (E.D. Tex., pending). Represents 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., pending). Represents SEVEN Networks in a patent litigation suit involving a number of Apple mobile products and services alleged to infringe sixteen patents owned by SEVEN Networks.
- Wi-LAN. Wi-LAN Inc. v. Acer Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.). Represented Wi-LAN in a patent litigation suit against leaders in the laptop, semiconductor, router, and handset industries related to Wi-LAN’s patented wideband OFDM that makes Wi-Fi capability possible in such devices. Both cases settled out of court for a substantial amount.
- Wi-LAN. Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc. (S.D. Cal., pending). Represents Wi-LAN in a patent litigation suit related to Wi-LAN’s patented technology that enables mobile 4G devices to support a variety of popular services, such as voice, conversational video, live streaming of video and music, real-time gaming, etc., all in the palm of a hand. On August 1, 2018, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Wi-LAN for $145.1 million.
- BMC Software. BMC Software Inc. v. ServiceNow Inc. (E.D. Tex.). Represented BMC Software in a patent infringement action involving IT management solutions. The case settled out of court before trial.
- Realtime Data. Realtime Data LLC v. CME (S.D.N.Y.). Represented Realtime Data, a New York company, in patent infringement litigations involving patents to data compression technology used in the realtime delivery of market data, including in the Fix Adapted for Streaming (FAST) industry standard.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board:
- BMC Software Inc. ServiceNow Inc. v. BMC Software Inc. Represented BMC in obtaining decisions of non-institution of its patents in CBM2015-00107 (U.S. Patent No. 7,062,683) and IPR2015-01601 (U.S. Patent No. 6,816,898).
U.S. Department of Justice:
- Swiss banks. Represented a number of Swiss banks that participated in the Department of Justice’s Swiss bank program, which was announced in late 2013 and related to cross-border tax and money laundering issues.
New York State Department of Financial Services:
- DFS Monitorship. Part of a team that conducted an 18-month monitorship of an international bank as a result of an enforcement action by the New York State Department of Financial Services. Conducted a historical review of the bank’s conduct in the United States and abroad and a global review of the bank’s compliance function. Worked with the bank on-site in Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the United States.
Rankings & Honors
- Recognized in Best Lawyers in America as "Ones to Watch" for Commercial and Patent, 2021-2022
- Recognized as a "Rising Star" in New York by Super Lawyers, 2015-2018
Media & Events
- 21 McKool Smith principals recognized in the 2022 Edition of "Best Lawyers in America" and 11 attorneys recognized in "Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch"08.19.2021
- 20 McKool Smith principals recognized in the 2021 Edition of "Best Lawyers in America" and 11 attorneys recognized in "Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch"08.18.2020
- Kevin Schubert's article "IPR Estoppel Increasingly Applies" is chosen as one of the 10 most-read IP articles from Law360 guest authors12.23.2019
- Media Coverage: McKool Smith Secures $145 Million Patent Infringement Verdict for WiLAN Against Apple08.03.2018
- Kevin Schubert Quoted in Law360 Article "Apple Must Fight WiLAN Patent Invalidity Suit In 2 Courts"09.04.2014
- Steve Pollinger, Nick Mathews, and Kevin Schubert to Participate at Licensing Executive Society’s Annual Conference05.01.2018
- Kevin Schubert published an article, “New Trend In IPR Institution Appealability Demands Scrutiny,” in Law36005.29.2020
- “Should State Street Be Overruled? Continuing Controversy Over Business Method Patents,” 90 Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 461 (2008).
- “Fuel Cell DG: A Stationary Solution to Mobilizing the Hydrogen Economy,” EnergyPulse (2003)
J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2009
B.S., summa cum laude, Electrical Engineering, Southern Methodist University, 2004
- State of New York
- State of New Jersey
- The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit