1100 Peachtree Street NE Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA USA 30309
Richard Goldstucker focuses his practice on counseling and patent litigation covering a broad range of technologies. His practice includes broad-based strategic counseling, advising clients on strategies to avoid litigation and, when litigation is necessary, representing clients in federal and state court and in U.S. and international arbitration. Mr. Goldstucker has experience in the following technology areas:
- Wi-Fi and Cellular networks
- Communications network protocols, including DOCSIS, UPnP, MoCA, IEEE, and Cable Labs
- Digital transmission techniques and error detection
- OLED Technologies
- Mechanical inventions, including collapsible concrete, window covering mechanisms, insulative food service modules, printers, angioplasty catheters, drainage systems
Mr. Goldstucker has also represented clients in drafting and negotiating all manner of contract, joint-development, and patent licensing agreements. He further counsels clients on developing and growing intellectual property portfolios.
Mr. Goldstucker was recognized in 2023 and the six years immediately preceding as a Georgia “Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine.
Represented Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter involving multiple patents directed toward the UPnP standard, MOCA technology, and the Cable Labs Home Networking Standard. Preservation Technologies, LLC v. Netflix Inc., No. 8:11-cv-01860-DOC-JPR (C.D. Ca. filed Dec. 2, 2011).
Represented Motorola Mobility in a lawsuit involving allegations of patent infringement of seven patents related to mobile phone data transfer. Motorola Mobility filed petitions for inter partes review of the asserted patents and moved to stay the proceedings. The Board instituted all of the IPRs and after all final written decisions, appeals and remands were completed, all asserted claims for two of the patents were invalidated, some claims of a third patent were invalidated, and plaintiff agreed not to pursue claims of a fourth patent. The case now has been dismissed. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, No. 0:13-cv-61358 (S.D. Fla. filed June 19, 2013).
Represented CoxCom, Inc. and Cox Communications, Inc. in the District of Delaware. BT filed a patent infringement action against Cox accusing certain aspects of its telecommunications and television network of infringing eight different patents. The case settled a week before the scheduled trial. British Telecommunications, PLC v. Coxcom Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00658 (D. Del. filed Aug. 5, 2010).
Represented Manhattan Associates in a patent infringement litigation in the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiff asserted a patent related to supply chain software against Manhattan Associates and several other defendants. Case settled. Sky Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp., et al., No. 1:11-cv-10833 (D. Mass. filed May 11, 2011).
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).
Successfully defended Victorinox Swiss Army, Inc. against claims of infringement of a patent related to a geographic search function in the Eastern District of Texas. Matter settled. GeoTag Inc. v. Where 2 Get It Inc. et al., No. 11-0175 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2011).
Represented Cox Communications and EarthLink in a suit filed by Ronald A. Katz Licensing Technology in the Eastern District of Texas. The suit claims patent infringement stemming from our clients’ use of automated telephone processing systems. The action was consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other suits brought by Katz against various other defendants in the Central District of California. Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, LLP v. Cox Commc'ns, No. 07-2299 (E.D. Tex. filed April 6, 2007); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., No. 07-01816 (E.D. Tex. filed July 7, 2008) and Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, LLP v. EarthLink, Inc., No. 07-2235, No. 07-2299 (E.D. Tex. filed April 9, 2007); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., No. 07-01816 (E.D. Tex. filed July 7, 2008).
Insights View All
University of Georgia School of Law J.D. (2009) recipient of the Marion Smith Memorial Academic Scholarship
University of Pennsylvania B.S. (2006) Systems Science and Engineering, cum laude
Georgia Court of Appeals
Supreme Court of Georgia
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 Northern District of Georgia
Counsel, Key Partner, Partnership for Inclusive Innovation
Counsel, Georgia Innovates Task Force
Board Member, Atlanta Memorial Park Conservancy
Lawyers Club of Atlanta, Member
University of Pennsylvania Alumni Interviewer
State Bar of Georgia Young Lawyers Leadership Academy Class of 2012
Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Notes Editor (2008-2009)
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.