Phillip Goter is an intellectual property attorney with extensive experience working with high tech clients in the computer software and hardware space. His keen familiarity with standards-essential cellular infrastructure, GPS, mobile apps, computer and network security, VoIP, wireless networking, home automation, and cloud computing provides his clients with a competitive advantage. Phillip has litigated across a diverse technology spectrum, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetic implants and injectables, gallium nitride LEDs, “smart” sporting goods, casualty insurance business methods, filtration, medical devices, and photonics.
Based in Fish & Richardson’s Twin Cities office, Phillip counsels startup companies around the world seeking to protect their intellectual property. In addition to being a Principal at Fish, Phillip is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School where he teaches Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship and assists with a limited-representation drop-in clinic for inventors, authors, entrepreneurs, startups, and small businesses, a clinic he helped launch at the Law School.
During law school, Phillip was a founding member of the Iowa Medical Innovation Group, dedicated to incubation and commercialization of medical device startups. Prior to law school, Phillip was a Senior Software Engineer for Rockwell Collins (2003-2009) focusing on project management, software architecture, and systems integration of software-defined radio and networking technologies.
J.D., University of Iowa College of Law 2011 with high distinction and honors, Order of the Coif
M.B.A., University of Iowa 2008
M.S., University of North Dakota 2005 Computer Science
B.S., University of North Dakota 2001 Computer Science
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Memberships & Affiliations
Contributing Editor, Iowa Law Review Member, Hon. Jimmie V. Reyna IP Inn of Court Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter Board Member, Chairman of the Golf Tournament Committee, Member of the Intellectual Property Practice Committee
Co-Speaker, “Update on Key Supreme Court Patent Decisions,” Minnesota Association of Corporate Counsel Annual Conference (June 14, 2018).
Lecturer, “Inter Partes Review Master Class,” University of Iowa College of Law’s Innovation, Business and Law Center (March 24, 2017).
Speaker, University of Minnesota Patent Law Proseminar (February 4, 2016).
Co-Speaker, “Here We Go Again: 7 Ways Congress May (Yet Again) Change the Patent Laws and How Those Changes May Affect You,” Fish & Richardson Patents on Tap CLE Event (September 10, 2015).
Co-Speaker, “The Current Landscape for NPE Litigation: Curbing NPE Activity,” Minnesota Association of Corporate Counsel Annual In-House Counsel Conference (June 18, 2015).
Phillip W. Goter, Usage Mining and Recommender Systems for the World-Wide Web (M.S. Thesis, UND Press 2005).
Ribbon Communications and Sonus Networks Inc. v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd., et al., 2:18cv57, 2:18cv58 (E.D. Tex.) – Represent Metaswitch adverse to Ribbon Communications (Sonus) in two related lawsuits concerning alleged infringement of 10 of Ribbon’s patents and 10 of Metaswitch’s patents related to voice over IP telephony.
Athena Diagnostics Inc., et al. v. Mayo Collaborative Services LLC, et al., 1:15cv40075 (D. Mass.) – Represent Mayo in a medical diagnostic patent case brought by Athena. Athena’s patent was found invalid under § 101. The ruling was affirmed at the Federal Circuit.
Duke University et al. v. Sandoz Inc., 1:18cv997 (D. Col.); Duke University et al. v. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al., 3:17cv7453 (D.N.J.) – Represent Allergan and Duke in related patent cases adverse to Sandoz and Alembic related to Sandoz’s and Alembic’s alleged infringement due to their generic versions of Latisse®.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2:16cv52, 2:16cv56, 2:16cv57 (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Huawei adverse to T-Mobile in a series of four related lawsuits concerning T-Mobile’s infringement of 14 of Huawei’s patents related to cellular network infrastructure equipment and services. Cases resolved favorably just before trial.
GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, 1:14cv878 (D. Del.) – Counsel for GlaxoSmithKline in a patent case involving methods of treating heart failure patients with carvedilol. In June 2017, a jury found Teva liable for willful infringement, found GSK’s patent valid, and awarded $235 million in damages. Currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 13-1534 (D. Del.) – Counsel for SRI against Cisco in a patent infringement suit involving network security technology. Jury Verdict for $23.7M, enhanced for willfulness and attorney fees. Currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Innovatio IP Ventures v. FedEx Corp., 1:11-cv-09308 (N.D. Ill.) – Counsel for FedEx in a patent infringement suit involving wireless network technology. Case settled favorably after bench trial on damages.
Tower Reinforcement, Inc. v. Crown Castle et al., 3:12cv60 (S.D. Ind.) – Counsel for Tower Reinforcement in a case involving patents on monopole cell phone tower reinforcement systems. Case settled favorably during discovery.
Nest Labs, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc., 0:12cv299 (D. Minn.) – Counsel for Nest Labs in defense of claims of infringement of seven Honeywell patents related to thermostats. The case settled after IPR proceedings were requested by Nest Labs.
Finjan Inc. v. McAfee Inc. et al., 1:10cv593 (D. Del.) – Counsel for McAfee in patent lawsuit involving antivirus software.