1400 Wewatta Street Suite 600, Denver, CO USA 80202
Kevin Bell is an intellectual property litigator. Mr. Bell focuses his practice on patent litigation, trademark litigation, and complex business litigation. He works with clients in such diverse fields as electronics, semiconductor manufacturing and development, software, telecommunications, transportation, entertainment, retail and consumer goods, and financial transactions. Mr. Bell has extensive experience in all aspects of federal district court litigation and International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations and trials. He also has experience in trademark prosecution and counseling, design patent litigation, and trade secret litigation.
On a pro bono basis, Mr. Bell represents prospective adoptive parents in kinship adoption cases, foreign parents in international child abduction cases under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, prisoners in habeas corpus cases, and petitions for clemency, and detainees seeking asylum under U.S. immigration law.
In law school, Mr. Bell was an Articles Editor for the University of Colorado Technology Law Journal (CTLJ), formerly the Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law.
Mr. Bell was recognized in 2022 and 2023 as one of the "Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch" for Intellectual Property Litigation by The Best Lawyers in America®.
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.)
Defended Respondents Citi City Liyuan Auto Parts Co., Ltd. and Tyger Auto, Inc. before the U.S. International Trade Commission in an investigation brought by subsidiaries of American company Truck Hero related to truck tonneau covers. Following expert discovery, the Complainants conceded defeat and withdrew the complaint, resulting in a complete victory for Respondents Liyuan and Tyger. In re Certain Pick-Up Truck Folding Bed Cover Systems and Components Thereof, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1088.
Represented Western Union in cross-patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas involving patents for staging money transfers. Our litigation team succeeded in obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement of MoneyGram’s patent, and then secured a jury verdict in favor of Western Union, finding that MoneyGram's FormFree system infringes Western Union's Money Transfer By Phone patents and awarding damages totaling $16.53 million. The court further entered a permanent injunction against MoneyGram. The Federal Circuit later reversed the trial court on the basis of obviousness. Western Union Co. v. Moneygram Int'l, Inc., No. 1-0372 (W.D. Tex. filed May 11, 2007).
Defended software developer, Rule Space LLC, against claims by competitor that our client infringed copyright by purchasing and using competitor's product outside of limitations in EULA. eSoft Inc. v. RuleSpace LLC, No. 1:10-cv-00545 (D. Colo. filed Mar. 9, 2010).
Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims for BSI Designs, a leading designer and manufacturer of restaurant equipment, in disputes with several competitors. All cases settled on favorable terms and with infringing food service devices removed from the market. Brass Smith, LLC v. Advanced Design Mfg. LLC, No. 2:10-cv-04945 (C.D. Cal. filed July 6, 2010).
Provide outside trademark counsel for a number of Colorado's most famous ski and snowboard resorts.
Successfully represented an Australian father in proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Obtained a verdict ordering return of the children to Australia following a trial on the merits, and ordering the defendant mother to pay all of the father’s attorney’s fees and costs. In re the Application of Bradley Reed Warren v. Emily Rebecca Ryan, 15-cv-00667 (D. Colo. filed March 31, 2015).
Successfully represented a Mexican mother pro bono in proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Obtained a verdict ordering return of the child to Mexico following a trial on the merits. In re the Application of Raquel Fabiola Marquez Avila v. Rolando Contreras Gallegos, 14-cv-00230 (D. Colo. filed January 27, 2014).
Successfully represented respondents LSI Corp. and Seagate Technologies in defense of a patent infringement action involving external memory controllers and serializer/deserializer interfaces used in integrated circuits. In re Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-753.
Insights View All
University of Colorado School of Law J.D. (2007) Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Articles Editor
Trinity University B.A. (2003) History and Political Science, Minor in Economics, cum laude, Dean's List
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
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.