Kirkland & Ellis
Firm overview:
Revered trial lawyers Kirkland & Ellis have extensive experience in the venues across the US where patent infringement cases are most often litigated, including district courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The calibre of the firm’s Patent Infringement Litigation practice has attracted some household-name brands to seek its representation, in lawsuits over business-foundational technology.
With a focus on trial readiness, Kirkland hones in on trial strategy and themes from the beginning of a case, with the expectation that strong trial-based case development optimises favourable settlements and outcomes. This approach is enabled by the firm’s bench of experienced trial lawyers and the training of junior lawyers. In addition, the firm’s appellate attorneys brief and argue high-stakes cases in the Federal Circuit and the US Supreme Court.
Team overview:
Kirkland’s team includes ten former US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent examiners. Seventy-eight percent of the team’s patent litigation attorneys have technical backgrounds.
Key matters:
● Staton Techiya et al v Samsung Electronics et al, No. 2:2021cv00413, Eastern District of Texas 2024.
Kirkland & Ellis secured an “unclean hands” defence win for client Samsung, which had been sued by Techiya and Synergy IP for alleged patent infringement. Samsung filed counterclaims against Techiya, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting that breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and trade secret misappropriation. Samsung also pleaded unclean hands and unenforceability as affirmative defences.
A Texas judge found that patent owner Techiya had used information stolen from Samsung by two former in-house attorneys to build its case.
The Kirkland team included Greg Arovas, Sean McEldowney, Luke Dauchot, Stephen DeSalvo, Mike Lehr, Ed Donovan, Bob Appleby and David Rokach with local counsel from Melissa Smith of Gillam & Smith.
● Dyson and SharkNinja were in the process of settling a patent dispute over cyclonic vacuum technology in January 2025. The parties asked courts in Massachusetts and Texas for 45 days to finalise the deal, which would dismiss two patent infringement lawsuits.
Dyson sued SharkNinja in May 2024 in Texas, accusing the company of copying its patented designs for vacuums and producing “lower-quality imitations of Dyson’s patented products”.
SharkNinja responded with a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts, seeking a declaration of non-infringement with regards to the five patents asserted by Dyson and defending its accused products, which included cordless stick vacuums such as the Shark Cordless Pro, Pet Cordless and Vertex Pro Cordless.
Kirkland and Ellis’s Bryan Hales, Jay Emerick and Caitlin Dean represented Dyson along with Melissa Smith of Gilliam & Smith. Gibson Dunn and Miller Fair Henry attorneys acted for SharkNinja in the matter.
Clients:
Non-Contentious - Bristol Myers Squibb.
Contentious - Dyson, EagleView, Samsung Electronics.
