Mitch Stockwell focuses his practice on intellectual property dispute resolution, with particular emphasis on patent infringement, trade secret and related intellectual property litigation and licensing transactions. He also handles inter partes reviews, reexaminations and other adversary proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Mr. Stockwell has represented companies in more than 60 lawsuits and arbitrations in federal courts throughout the country. He has tried to verdict, and litigated through judgment and appeal, more than a dozen disputes. He has litigated and evaluated patents and trade secret claims in technologies including cable and telephony communications, wireless communications (including GSM, NMTS and VOIP standards) software, e-commerce, electronics, medical products (including athletic knee and hip systems) and athletic shoes and equipment.
Mr. Stockwell was selected by his clients to BTI Consulting’s 2010 and 2011 Client Service All-Star Team in recognition of his client service excellence. He was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Intellectual Property Law and Patent Litigation in 2023 and the 15 years immediately preceding. He has been named repeatedly for Life Sciences to The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers and the International Who's Who of Patent Lawyers in 2007, 2011 and 2013. Mr. Stockwell was also recognized as a Georgia “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Law in 2009 and for Intellectual Property Litigation in 2022 and the 13 years immediately preceding by Super Lawyers magazine. He is listed in the 2022 and each of the 13 years immediately preceding editions of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. Mr. Stockwell has been recognized as one of Georgia Trend’s 2012 “Legal Elite” in the areas of General Practice/Trial Law and Intellectual Property Law. He has been selected as a “2013 Top Rated Lawyer in Intellectual Property” by Martindale-Hubbell and American Lawyer Media in The American Lawyer & Corporate Counsel magazine. Mr. Stockwell was named an “IP Star” by Managing Intellectual Property magazine in 2022 and the nine years immediately preceding. In 2022 and the nine years immediately preceding, he was named a top patent practitioner by IAM Patent 1000 – The World's Leading Patent Practitioners. He was honored with Managing IP's 2018 Americas IP Award for Outstanding Litigator: Georgia and again in 2021 as Practitioner of the Year (Litigation) in Georgia. Mr. Stockwell is AV® Preeminent™ rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
Mr. Stockwell regularly assists companies with intellectual property and related disputes and counseling. He has spoken on related topics at seminars sponsored by the ABA, PLI and various state and national bar and CLE organizations. Mr. Stockwell acted as an adjunct professor for the University of Georgia on intellectual property courses, and is an active member in the State Bar of Georgia.
Represented adidas AG, adidas North America, Inc., adidas America, Inc., and adidas International Trading AG in patent infringement and importation investigation at ITC brought by Nike, Inc., related to the design and manufacture of shoe uppers for knitted footwear, with related action in Oregon federal court. One of the largest patent cases in the footwear industry, the case involved nine U.S. patents from multiple distinct families of patents, each covering a different subject matter. After completing both fact and expert discovery, the case was settled on confidential terms shortly before the evidentiary hearing at the ITC. In re Certain Knitted Footwear, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1289; Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG et al., No. 3:21-cv-01780 (D. Or.)
In YellowPages.com LLC et al. v. Click-To-Call Technologies LP, Click-to-Call Technologies LP (“CTC”) asserted patent infringement claims against our client, YP Interactive LLC (“YP”), formerly known as YellowPages.com LLC, as well as patent infringement actions against Oracle and several of Oracle’s customers. The patent claimed technology that allowed users to make a phone call by clicking on a link in a website. In response to the patent infringement actions, Kilpatrick Townsend attorneys filed an inter partes review of the patent asserted by CTC. After briefing and a hearing, the Board determined that the arguments proffered by the Kilpatrick Townsend team were persuasive and thus invalidated 13 claims of the asserted patent. United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board Case Number IPR2013-00312.
Successfully represented the patent owner in four, serial ex parte reexaminations brought by Medtronic, a large medical device company. After the reexaminations, obtained a judgment in excess of $12 million that was affirmed on appeal.
The firm represented adidas against plaintiff Orion IP LLC, now Clear With Computers, in a suit where multiple defendants, including PACCAR and Lenovo were accused of infringing two business method patents related to sales configuration software and part identification software. Settlement was reached for all parties. (Judge Davis). Orion IP, LLC v. Nike, Inc., et al., No. 06-0102 (E.D. Tex filed Mar. 16, 2006).
Representing adidas in inter partes review proceedings against patent owned by Nike concerning footwear manufacturing technology.
Defending ARRIS in patent infringement and importation investigation brought by Rovi, related to on-screen programing guide technology. Trial set for December before Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw, with related actions in E.D. Texas and New York State Court. In re Digital Video Receivers, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1001.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of CoxCom, Inc. in two suits brought by Rembrandt in the Eastern District of Texas and other districts on nine patents related to the technology involved in the delivery of cable services. We persuaded the judicial panel on multi-district litigation to consolidate, for pre-trial purposes, numerous proceedings and transfer the matter to the District of Delaware. A Markman order from the first case in the series was subsequently vacated by the transferee judge, thus limiting the plaintiffs to a single claim construction. Case pending. (Originally assigned to Judge Ward; transferred to Judge Davis). Rembrandt Techs., LP v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., No. 06-223 (E.D. Tex. filed June 1, 2006), In re Rembrandt Techs. LP Patent Litig., No. 07-01848 (D. Del. filed June 21, 2007).
Representing Respondent ARRIS in a patent infringement and importation investigation brought by OpenTV/Nagra/Kudelski, related to digital content and voice command technology. Trial is estimated for November 2017 before Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex. In re Certain Digital Television Set-Top Boxes, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1041.
Reebok against Respondents RBX Active in patent infringement and importation investigation related to athletic shoe sole functionality. Case favorably settled after Respondents agreed to cease importation. In re Certain Athletic Footwear, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1018.
Served as lead counsel on behalf of Peach State Labs in a patent infringement suit related to the use of urea hydrochloride as a cleaning agent. After a week long jury trial, the jury found that the defendant had willfully infringed Peach State’s patent and awarded damages leaving the defendant with $0.01 per unit profit. The district court later granted Peach State a permanent injunction. The district court further found that Peach State had demonstrated clear and convincing evidence that the infringer engaged in egregious litigation misconduct sufficient to meet the standards for awarding enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. Peach State Labs, Inc. v. Environmental Manufacturing Solutions, No. 09-cv-395 (M.D. Fla. filed Feb. 27, 2009).
Served as lead counsel on behalf of Jan Voda, M.D., a cardiologist, in a patent infringement suit related to angioplasty catheters against Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc., in the Western District of Oklahoma. After a two-week trial in January 2012, a jury found Dr. Voda’s patents to be valid and Medtronic willfully infringed. The jury awarded Dr. Voda a royalty rate of over 14 percent. Voda v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., No. 09-cv-95 (W.D. Okla filed Jan. 22, 2009).
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Chrysler Group and Mercedes-Benz USA LLC in connection with a string of successes in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin and the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas against related entities Orion, Taurus and ST Sales Tech. The plaintiff entities, who had asserted several patents against Chrysler and Mercedes after a settlement agreement was in place, were put on the defensive when we asserted counterclaims for breach of a previous settlement agreement. The United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for Chrysler and MBUSA finding non-infringement, invalidity and dismissing all the patent-related claims. Later a jury returned a verdict on liability in favor of Chrysler and MBUSA on the breach of contract claims. After a finding that the plaintiff had not acted in good faith, the court then awarded contract damages and legal fees. Related suits were later dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of no liability and the award of attorney fees to our client. (Judge Crabb and Judge Davis). Taurus IP, LLC v. Chrysler, LLC and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 07-0158 (W.D. Wis. filed Mar. 20, 2007); Orion IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler (E.D. Tex.) and Orion IP, LLC v. MBUSA (E.D. Tex.).
Lead counsel defending adidas in a patent infringement suit brought by Nike in the Eastern District of Texas related to Nike Shox technology and the use of electronic sensors in shoes. After we obtained a favorable Markman ruling for adidas, Nike stipulated to non-infringement by adidas of the Shox patent. We successfully negotiated a favorable settlement agreement for adidas prior to trial. (Judge Clark). Nike, Inc. v. adidas America, Inc., et al., 479 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. Tex. 2007).
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Cox Communications, which was accused of infringing a competitor’s patents relating to voice over IP technology. We obtained a jury verdict of no patent infringement of six patents and invalidity of two patents. Affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., No. 08-157 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 11, 2008).
Insights View All
University of Virginia School of Law J.D. (1993)
Virginia Military Institute B.S. (1990) Electrical Engineering, with distinction
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
American Bar Association, Member
American Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
Co-Chair, Atlanta Program, Practising Law Institute's Patent Litigation (2003-2010)
Federal Bar Association, Member
Patent Bar of the United States, Member
State Bar of Georgia, Investigative Panel, Former Member
University of Georgia School of Law, Former Adjunct Professor
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.