Main Menu


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 intellectual property and competition cases for more than 25 years. Ted has extensive federal trial experience, having won courtroom victories in intellectual property cases involving diverse technologies such as cellular telephones, balloon angioplasty catheters, wireless networking, integrated circuits, hydraulic fracturing, prepaid calling cards, and enterprise software. Ted is one of the world's foremost experts on cases alleging competitive violations in patent licensing, having handled six trials and an arbitration adjudicating whether proposed royalties for standard essential patent portfolios complied with FRAND. Many of the world's leading inventors turn to Ted to defend their licensing programs from claims of anti-competition behavior.  Ted also has tried and won non-patent cases alleging trade secret violations, trade dress infringement, and software performance. 

Ted is ranked as one of the "Top 100" trial lawyers in the nation and a “Local Litigation Star” for commercial and IP litigation by Benchmark Litigation.  He is ranked Band 1 by Chambers USA for IP litigation in Texas and by Chambers Global for patent litigation.  Chambers  reports that Ted is sought by sources for his “unparalleled trial experience” and that “he is incredibly familiar with litigation tactics and jury presentation”.  He is ranked by Best Lawyers in America for Litigation: Bet-the-Company, Commercial, IP, Patent, and Trade Secrets.  Texas Super Lawyers consistently ranks Ted among its top 100 lawyers in Texas.  Managing IP Magazine recognizes Ted as an "IP Star."  He was named the 2016 Texas "IP Litigator of the Year" by Managing IP, was awarded the 2014 Bet-the-Company "Lawyer of the Year" and the 2017 Trade Secret and Patent Litigation "Lawyer of the Year" in Dallas by Best Lawyers, and received the Lexology "Client Choice Award" in 2014 for Patent Litigation in Texas.  Texas Lawyer Magazine has recognized Ted as one of the five “go-to” intellectual property litigators in the state. 

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

  • HTC v. Ericsson. Ted won a defense verdict for Ericsson in the first breach of FRAND case to ever be tried to a jury related to cellular patents. HTC brought the case challenging that Ericsson’s royalty rates for its global portfolio of 4G essential patents were excessive. The jury rejected all of HTC’s arguments: that royalty rates must be calculated based on the cost of certain chips in a cell phone, that Ericsson’s rates should be capped based on a “top down” industry patent survey, and that Ericsson discriminated against HTC in favor of other licensees. The jury found that Ericsson’s royalty rates, which were $2.50 per phone or 1% with a cap and floor, were fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”). The district court confirmed the verdict with a detailed declaratory judgment that held that Ericsson fully complied with FRAND and rejecting all HTC’s theories of recovery. The case is currently on appeal, and the district court also referred HTC’s antitrust claims and back royalty recovery claims to arbitration, which is also currently pending.
  • TCL v. Ericsson. When TCL Communications, one of the top 10 cell phone manufacturers in the world, sued Ericsson for breach of FRAND and antitrust violations in California, Ericsson turned to Ted to defend it. Ted counter-asserted Ericsson patents related to cell phone security features against TCL in Texas district court, and won a jury verdict of willful infringement and a nine-figure judgment against TCL. Ted also defended Ericsson in a bench trial in California district court, and recently won an appeal remanding the case and holding that the California district court should have held a jury trial.
  • Nokia v. Lenovo. Ted is currently assering eight patents owned by Nokia covering H.264 video coding technology against Lenovo. The case is pending in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
  • Solocron v. AT&T. Ted defended AT&T against allegations of patent infringement brought by Solocron under patents it alleged covered downloading of ringtones to cell phones. Mid-way through the case, Ted took a trial deposition of the inventor, who was outside the district. The next business day following Ted’s cross of the inventor, Solocron’s counsel called to give notice that Solocron had decided to “walk away” and voluntarily dismiss its case with prejudice.
  • PanOptis v. Huawei. Ted successfully represented PanOptis in a patent infringement and breach of FRAND dispute in which PanOptis asserted its 4G essential and H.264 patents against Huawei, the second largest seller of cell phones worldwide. The jury found 5 patents were willfully infringed by Huawei and awarded damages. Based on the verdict of willful infringement, plus its finding that Huawei resorted to “gamesmanship” in its defense of the case, the district court found it to be an “exceptional case” and awarded PanOptis its attorney fees. For the damages case, Ted presented a “bottoms up” valuation model that isolated the technical benefit of the PanOptis patents individually, financially quantified the technical benefit, and applied that to Huwei phones to determine the reasonable royalty that should have been paid. That resulted in royalties of just under $3 per phone.

  • Unwired Planet v. Apple. Ted successfully represented Unwired Planet asserting 3 patents related to location services, app store technology, and speeding up web browsing against Apple. Ted handled jury selection in district court in San Francisco, and Apple settled the case the night before opening statements were scheduled to commence.

  • Ericsson v. TCL. Ted won a jury verdict against TCL Communications, a global cellular handset manufacturer, for infringement of an Ericsson patent covering security features to prevent apps from accessing unpermitted information on a smart phone.
  • Ericsson v. DLink. Won a jury verdict against Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Netgear, and DLink in a patent infringement case involving 802.11 wifi standard essential patents. Following the jury trial, the court held a bench trial to adjudicate defendants' assertions of RAND violations, after which it ruled in favor of Ericsson finding no RAND violation. The case was affirmed as to liability on appeal and remanded for a new trial on damages.
  • Nokia v. Apple. Represented Nokia in its global licensing dispute with Apple. Ted was involved in two district court cases and one ITC case asserting 8 H.264 standard essential patents and 10 wireless implementation patents. The dispute settled prior to trial on confidential terms.
  • Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific. 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. 
  • Halliburton v. Baker Hughes.  Handled an arbitration for Halliburton to determine infringement and royalty for patents related to hydraulic fracturing.
  • Ericsson v. Apple. Represented Ericsson in its patent infringement dispute against Apple comprising two ITC investigations, six U.S. District Court cases, and numerous international cases. The matter settled confidentially after the first ITC hearing and shortly before the first of a series of district court trials alleging patent infringement and seeking a declaration that Ericsson had complied with FRAND with regard to its cellular standard essential and implementation patents.
  • Summit 6 v. Samsung. Won a jury verdict for Summit 6 in a patent infringement suit against Samsung asserting a photo pre-processing patent used in Samsung phones. Following a jury trial in the Northern District of Texas, the jury found infringement and awarded lump sum damages. The court conducted a separate inequitable conduct trial and rejected Samsung's allegations of inequitable conduct. Ted argued the appeal before the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the trial court in all regards.
  • Versata Software v. SAP. 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 was ultimately affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
  • Visto v. Seven Networks. Won a jury verdict in Marshall, Texas, in 2006, against Seven Networks based on patents covering push email systems for smart phones. The jury awarded a 20 percent royalty and found willful infringement. The district court entered a permanent injunction as well as enhanced damages.
  • Droplets v. Sears and Overstock. Won a jury verdict of infringement and damages against two defendants related to patents covering plug-in programs used in connection with websites. The defendants settled following the adverse verdict and prior to appeal.
  • Ericsson v. Samsung. Represented Ericsson in its patent infringement dispute against Samsung comprising two ITC actions and two district court actions. After two ITC hearings in fall 2013 (one offensive and one 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.
  • Medtronic, Inc. v. Cordis. 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.
  • 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. 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.
  • DataTreasury v. Sun Trust, et al. 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.
  • Bedrock v. Google. 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.
  • DataTreasury v. EDS. 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. Research in Motion. Represented Visto against RIM in a number of U.S. and international 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.


Rankings & Honors

  • Named Dallas IP Litigation "Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers in America, 2020
  • Awarded Texas "IP Litigator of the Year" by Managing IP, 2016
  • Ranked as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA (Band 1). The 2021 edition notes that "He is a top-notch trial attorney who is great before a jury and is an excellent advocate on his feet. "Theodore is an excellent oral advocate who is really, really good at being able to articulate a complex case in a way a jury can understand and resonate with."
  • Recognized as a leading patent litigator by The Legal 500, 2013-2021. The publication notes that he is: "providers great value both as a case manager and as an individual lawyer" (2020), "dedicated, creative and strategic" (2016); "very smart and dedicated" (2014); and "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).
  • Awarded the International Law Office (ILO) and Lexology 2014 "Client Choice Award" for Texas Patent Litigation
  • Recognized by Best Lawyers in America for Litigation: Bet-the-Company, Commercial, Intellectual Property, Patent, and Trade Secrets, 2015-2020
  • Named a "Texas Trailblazer" by Texas Lawyer, 2020
  • Named Best Lawyers Dallas Trade Secrets "Lawyer of the Year," 2017
  • Named the Best Lawyers Dallas Bet-the-Company Litigation "Lawyer of the Year," 2014
  • Named "IP Star" by Managing IP, 2013-2015
  • Named "IP Oustanding Litigator: Texas", 2020
  • Named the Best Lawyers Dallas Litigation: Patent "Lawyer of the Year," 2012
  • Named a "National IP Litigation Star" and "Texas Litigation Star" by Benchmark Plaintiff
  • Ranked as "Top 100 Trial Lawyer" by Benchmark Litigation (2019-2020)
  • Ranked as an Intellectual Property "Litigation Star" by Benchmark Litigation, 2015-2020
  • Received Gold Star ranking for Texas Patent Litigation by IAM Patent 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners, 2020
  • Listed in Super Lawyers, 2005-present
  • Recognized as one of the "Top 100" lawyers in Texas by Super Lawyers
  • Recognized in the Lawdragon 500 listing of the "Leading Lawyers in America"
  • Listed as Texas Lawyer "Go-To Counsel" for intellectual property


Community & Professional Activities

  • National Institute of Trial Advocacy
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Master, Barbara Lynn IP Inn of Court

Media & Events




J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 1988

  • Order of the Coif
  • Editorial board, Virginia Law Review

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University, 1985

Court Admissions

  • 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

Bar Associations

  • American Bar Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association - Founding Master of the Barbara M.G. Lynn Intellectual Property Inn of Court
  • Dallas Bar Association
  • Eastern District of Texas Bar Associations
Back to Page