Steven D. Moore
`Partner
`Two Embarcadero Center
`Suite 1900 , San Francisco , CA USA 94111
`t 415.273.4741 | f 415.651.8510
`1001 West Fourth Street , Winston-Salem , NC USA 27101
`
`t 336.607.7431
`smoore@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Services
`Intellectual Property
`
`Licensing, Transactions &
`Monetization
`
`Patent Disputes
`
`Patents
`
`Post-Grant Proceedings
`
`Industries
`Apparel, Accessories & Luxury
`Goods
`
`Automotive
`
`Consumer Goods
`
`Electronics & Computer
`Technology
`
`Financial Institutions
`
`Financial Services
`
`Fintech
`
`Food, Restaurant & Beverage
`
`Health & Life Sciences
`
`Home Furnishings
`
`Media & Entertainment
`
`Medical & Surgical Devices
`
`Retail & Consumer Goods
`
`Technology
`
`Steve Moore focuses his practice on patent infringement litigation in a wide variety of industries. Mr. Moore both
`defends companies accused of patent infringement and represents patent owners harmed by a competitor’s
`infringement in pursuing patent and related claims. Mr. Moore also has experience in successfully coordinating
`global patent litigation, resulting in favorable rulings for his clients both in the U.S. and abroad. Mr. Moore further
`has experience in trade dress claims and commercial litigation matters.
`
`Mr. Moore has extensive courtroom experience in patent and commercial litigation cases, including trying
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2004 - Page 1 of 7
`
`

`

`numerous patent and commercial litigation cases to a jury. Mr. Moore’s jury trial experience includes handling
`several multi-week multi-patent cases in which juries have returned verdicts of non-infringement and invalidity
`for his clients. Mr. Moore further has argued at and examined witnesses in numerous Markman hearings, after
`which courts issued claim construction rulings that have caused cases to resolve favorably for his clients. Mr.
`Moore also frequently argues before the Federal Circuit, and has argued before the en banc Federal Circuit.
`
`Mr. Moore was listed in 2018 by The Best Lawyers in America® for Intellectual Property Litigation. He was
`recognized as a "Super Lawyer" in Intellectual Property Litigation in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 by Super
`Lawyers magazine. Mr. Moore was recognized as a 2016 and 2017 "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property
`magazine. He was named a top patent practitioner in 2016 and 2017 by IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading
`Patent Practitioners. Mr. Moore is listed in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 editions of Chambers USA: America's
`Leading Lawyers for Business for Intellectual Property Law. He was named to The International Who’s Who of
`Business Lawyers for Patents in 2013 and 2014 and The International Who's Who of Patent Lawyers in 2013.
`
`Experience
`
`The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of a number of defendants, including Motorola, AT&T, and Cox
`Communications in two parallel patent infringement actions in the Western District of North Carolina and the
`Eastern District of Texas regarding technology involving wireless telephone handset equipment, and digital
`cable or satellite set-top boxes. After a favorable claim construction ruling for our clients in the North Carolina
`matter, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss its claims for infringement with prejudice in both North Carolina and
`Texas. Thomas v. Motorola, Inc., No. 05-00493 (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 28, 2005); Thomas v. Cingular Wireless LLC,
`et al., No. 05-00495 (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 28, 2005); Thomas v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., et al., No. 07-0231 (E.D. Tex.
`filed June 6, 2007); Thomas v. Adelphia Commc'ns Corp., et al., No. 05-00497 (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 28, 2005);
`Thomas v. Alltel, et al., No. 05-0506 (W.D.N.C. filed Dec. 6, 2005).
`
`The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Georgia-Pacific LLC’s subsidiaries in a patent infringement suit
`against two competitors in the Northern District of Georgia involving composite food wrap products. Following
`a favorable Markman ruling in which the court adopted our clients’ claim construction arguments, the parties
`reached a settlement involving cash payment and an ongoing royalty-bearing license. Fort James Corp. & Fort
`James Operating Co. v. J.H. McNairn, Ltd., et al., No. 04-3000 (N.D. Ga. filed Oct. 14, 2004).
`
`We defended Motorola against Fujifilm's assertion of five patents relating to digital cameras and the
`transmission of files through a cell phone. After summary judgment and a two week jury trial in San Francisco,
`Motorola prevailed on four of the five patents (proving two of the patents invalid and not infringed, one patent
`not infringed, and one patent invalid), and excluded willful infringement or injunctive relief. Through ex parte
`reexamination proceedings, Kilpatrick Townsend invalidated the fifth patent. Fujifilm Corporation v. Motorola
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2004 - Page 2 of 7
`
`

`

`Mobility LLC, No. 3:12-cv-3587 (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2012).
`
`The firm served as lead counsel in the representation of Epic Systems Corporation, a leading Wisconsin-based
`health care software company, against claims of patent infringement in a suit involving Internet-based doctor-
`patient communications software. The district court held that Epic and its health care provider customers did
`not and could not infringe the patent. The case settled while on appeal. McKesson Info. Solutions v. Epic Sys.
`Corp., No. 06-2965 (N.D. Ga. filed Dec. 6, 2006), No. 2010-1291 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2011).
`
`Represented Motorola Mobility in an inter partes review challenge of U.S. Patent No. 7,516,484 relating to a
`reader adapted for a portable computer. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancelled all claims challenged (as
`anticipated by prior act). United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board Case
`Number IPR2013-00010.
`
`The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of a provider of automatic order fulfillment systems in a patent
`infringement suit brought by a pharmacy automation company in the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiff
`accused our client of infringing a patent related to automated prescription filling systems. Summary judgment
`was granted in favor of our client and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`Defended Motorola Mobility LLC against a suit that Intellectual Ventures filed accusing certain smartphones
`and tablets of infringing six different patents. The case team won one of the patents on summary judgment,
`tried three others to a jury resulting in a hung jury and mistrial, and then won two of those three patents on
`post-trial motions. The firm tried another patent to a second jury resulting in a verdict of noninfringement and
`invalidity as to that patent. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, Civ. No. 11-908 (D. Del.
`filed Oct. 6, 2011).
`
`Served as lead counsel on behalf of Molnlycke Health Care Group AB in a patent infringement suit against two
`competitors in the Northern District of Georgia involving silicone-based wound dressings. The court entered a
`favorable claim construction ruling for our clients, and the case settled while summary judgment motions were
`pending after the manufacturer of the accused products removed them from the U.S. marketplace. Molnlycke
`Health Care Group AB v. Ossur & Medline, No. 06-1027 (N.D. Ga. filed Apr. 28, 2006).
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend was successful on behalf of Motorola Mobility in winning summary judgment against EON
`Corp. IP Holdings, LLC in the Northern District of California. In a strongly-worded opinion, the Court found that
`EON had presented no admissible evidence to defend against summary judgment, and further that its theories
`both flatly contradicted positions EON had taken earlier in the litigation as well as the constructions in the
`Court’s Markman Order. On March 6, 2015, two days after oral argument, the Federal Circuit unanimously
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2004 - Page 3 of 7
`
`

`

`affirmed.
`
`We represented Motorola Mobility in defending patent infringement claims related to wireless earpiece
`technology in the Western District of Texas. After winning summary judgment on certain of the claims and
`forcing plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of others before trial, we presented a defense that led the jury to return a
`verdict of non-infringement and invalidity against the remaining claims that were at issue. Effingo Wireless, Inc.
`v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 5:11-cv-00649 (W.D. Tex.) We also invalidated the patent in a re-examination
`proceeding.
`
`We represented Interface Inc., a leading manufacturer of carpet tile, in patent litigation filed by one of its largest
`competitors alleging hundreds of millions of dollars in damages as a result of infringement of two patents. After
`a three-week jury trial, the jury took less than one hour to find that the competitor's patents were invalid and that
`Interface did not infringe them. During the hearing on inequitable conduct issues, Interface reached a
`confidential settlement with the competitor resolving these issues as well as resolving Interface's counterclaims
`for infringement of two of its own patents.
`
`On March 5, 2014, Kilpatrick Townsend was successful on behalf of Motorola Mobility in winning summary
`judgment against EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC less than three weeks before trial, in a case that had been pending
`in the District of Delaware for nearly three and one-half years. The court’s grant of summary judgment was
`decided on the relatively uncommon ground of invalidity by indefiniteness, and entirely invalidated EON’s patent,
`ending the case at the district court. On May 6, 2015, the Federal Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, affirmed
`summary judgment granted by the District of Delaware. EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. FLO TV Inc., No.
`10-812-RGA, 2014 WL 906182 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2014).
`
`Successfully defended patent infringement case in the Northern District of California for client Oracle against
`Thought, Inc. involving seven patents for object-to-relational mapping technology. Over a three-year period, we
`defeated a claim for $130 million dollars in damages by (1) invalidating three patents in IPR proceedings; (2)
`obtaining voluntarily dismissals of three more patents; and (3) obtaining summary judgment of
`non-infringement of the final patent affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, No.
`3:12-cv-05601-LB (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 31, 2012)
`
`Representation of Kennametal Inc., a $2 billion per year NYSE company, in a patent litigation action that its
`biggest global competitor filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
`alleging that Kennametal infringed certain metal cutting tool patents. We successfully transferred the case to
`the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania – Kennametal's home jurisdiction –
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). We forced a voluntary dismissal of one of the two patents. We then obtained a
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2004 - Page 4 of 7
`
`

`

`favorable claim construction ruling in which the remaining patent was found invalid for indefiniteness. The
`parties later entered an agreement resolving their disputes in this action and other related actions. Also
`represented Kennametal in a patent litigation matter in the United States District Court for the Western District
`of Pennsylvania alleging that Kennametal’s largest global competitor and related entities infringe claims of two
`patents owned by Kennametal. We obtained an agreement for one entity to cease infringing one of the patents.
`The parties were still litigating the other patent, which related to metal cutting tools, at the time of settlement.
`Also served as global coordinating counsel in a patent litigation action that Sandvik filed in the High Court of
`Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, United Kingdom. After a bench trial, the Court found Sandvik's patent
`invalid for indefiniteness, lack of enablement, and obviousness. Sandvik Intellectual Prop. AB v. Kennametal Inc.,
`No. 09-0163 (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 27, 2009); Sandvik Intellectual Prop. AB, v. Kennametal Inc., No. 10-654 (W.D.
`Pa. filed May 13, 2010); Kennametal Inc. v. Sandvik, Inc. d/b/a Sandvik Coromant Co., et al., No. 09-cv-00857,
`(W.D. Pa. filed June 29, 2009); Sandvik Intellectual Property AB, Claimant and Kennametal UK Limited,
`Kennametal Inc., Kennametal Europe GMBH, Defendants; Claim No. HC 10 C02090, High Court of Justice,
`Chancery Division, Patents Court.
`
`Education
`
`Duke University School of Law, J.D. (1996) magna cum laude
`
`Duke University, A.B., Economics (1993) cum laude
`
`Admissions
`
`California
`
`Georgia
`
`North Carolina
`
`Court Admissions
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
`
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
`
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
`
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
`
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
`
`U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
`
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2004 - Page 5 of 7
`
`

`

`U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
`
`Clerkships
`
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia - Richard C. Freeman
`
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina - Alexander B. Denson
`
`Professional & Community Activities
`
`Georgia State Bar Association, Member
`
`North Carolina State Bar, Member
`
`Alaska Law Review, Former Executive Editor
`
`Insights
`
`News Releases
`
`Record-Breaking Recognition for Kilpatrick Townsend in The Best Lawyers in America® 2018
`August 15, 2017
`
`News Releases
`
`Twenty-Four Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Named 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers & Rising Stars
`August 9, 2017
`
`In The News
`
`Steve Moore Quoted by Managing Intellectual Property re: "First-Half US Patent Litigation Data and Analysis -
`Uniloc Tops Plaintiff Ranking"
`July 31, 2017
`
`News Releases
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Named 2017 Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars
`June 27, 2017
`
`News Releases
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend Receives High Rankings in 2017 IAM Patent 1000
`June 8, 2017
`
`News Releases
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend Named San Francisco Bar Association's Justice & Diversity Center's 2016 Outstanding Law
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2004 - Page 6 of 7
`
`

`

`Firm in Public Service
`April 3, 2017
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2004 - Page 7 of 7
`
`