Software Litigation Attorney

Free Case Evaluation

You must read the following notice before sending an e-mail message to Robins Kaplan LLP.

Any information that you send us in an e-mail message should not be confidential or otherwise privileged information. Sending us an e-mail message will not make you a client of Robins Kaplan LLP. We do not accept representation until we have had an opportunity to evaluate your matter, including but not limited to an ethical evaluation of whether we are in a conflict position to represent you. Accordingly, the information you provide to us in an e-mail should not be information for which you would have an expectation of confidentiality.

If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.

By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.

Software is the heartbeat of almost every industry, and disputes and licensing related to software and source code present distinct challenges. At Robins Kaplan LLP, our software attorneys have the litigation experience and technical expertise our clients need. Our attorneys—some of whom are former software engineers—understand the balance of achieving litigation goals for our clients while at the same time protecting their trade secrets.

Our in-house team includes Ph.D. science advisors in computer science and engineering, as well as finance and economic consultants who understand the intricacies of the software industry. Together, we analyze the relevant technologies and the unique market and valuation concerns related specifically to software. This information limits the need for costly external damages experts and offers our clients clarity in decisions related to the value of their intellectual property assets.

We’re not just a law firm that understands software; we are a law firm that writes software.

Our in-house software development team has created a number of tools designed to revolutionize case management. Our custom-built suite of legal project management software—including our proprietary OneBudget® software tool—tracks, manages, and reports individual case budgets providing complete transparency into budget information for in-house counsel. These tools help us add cost-saving efficiency and increase predictability for corporate counsel concerned with keeping their department on budget and accessing more reliable information for their business decisions.


Our work in connection with software-related disputes includes:

  • Patent Litigation
  • Copyrights Litigation
  • Trade Secret Litigation
  • IP Monetization

Clients and Industries

In addition to representing software industry clients, our attorneys have litigation experience with software-related issues in multiple business sectors, including:

  • Aviation
  • Consumer Electronics
  • Entertainment and Media
  • Food and Beverage
  • GPS and Navigation
  • Network Security
  • Retail
  • Semiconductors

Selected Case Results

  • Personal Audio LLC v. Apple Inc.: A patent infringement case in which a Texas federal jury awarded our client, Personal Audio LLC, $8 million in damages after finding that Apple's iPods infringed our client's patent for an audio player that can download or receive navigable playlists.  The verdict was announced on July 8, 2011.  The court also awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,182,331 for a total judgment of $12,182,331. 

  • Eolas Technologies, Inc. and The Regents of the University of California v. Microsoft Corporation: Represented Eolas Technologies, Inc. and the Regents of the University of California, in action for patent infringement of web browser technology for the delivery of interactive applications embedded in web pages. The case was tried in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Chicago, Illinois, Zagel, Judge. Jury verdict in favor of Eolas and the University of California, on issues of infringement, validity, and damages in the amount of $520.6 million. On January 14, 2004, the court entered judgment for $565,894,868 which includes the amount of the original verdict plus prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of infringement and the damages award, and ordered that Microsoft’s invalidity and inequitable conduct defenses be retried. The case settled on a confidential basis four days before the start of the invalidity trial. 

  • TVI v. Microsoft (N.D. Calif):Represented TVI against Microsoft in a suit alleging that all versions of Microsoft Windows since Windows 95 infringed TVI’s patents covering the operating systems’ autoplay feature. The case confidentially settled with Microsoft taking a license.  

  • St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. Digital Camera Patent Litigation (D. Del.):Represented St. Clair in a series of patent infringement suits involving digital camera technology that started in 2002.  Three of those cases proceeded to trial and resulted in verdicts of $34.7 million, $25 million, and $3 million.  Settlements were reached prior to trials with the following defendants:  Olympus, Nikon, Minolta, Seiko-Epson, Kodak, JVC, Panasonic, Kyocera, Samsung, Sanyo, Casio, Pentax, LG, BenQ, Concord, General Imaging Co., and Pantech.  Settlements were reached after trials with Sony and Canon.  Total settlements in this litigation have exceeded $240 million.

  • In re Certain GPS Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related SoftwareRepresented Honeywell Inc. in the enforcement of a series of patents related to GPS and navigational systems for use in the recreational marine industry. Filed suit in 2009 in district court; while the patents were waiting re-examination, initiated proceedings before the International Trade Commission against one named defendant, Furuno Electric Co., related to additional acts of infringement of additional patents. Negotiated a successful resolution of that matter, along with resolution of that portion of the original district court action related to that defendant.


* Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation we practice. They do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case, as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.


Christopher K. Larus


Chair, National IP and Technology Litigation Group


December 2016-January 2017
Navigating the Protection of Big Data
Intellectual Property Magazine
December 12, 2014
Are Courts the New Death Squads for Software Patents? Not So Fast.
Bloomberg BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal
Back to Top