Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Q&A With Fish & Richardson's Kurt Glitzenstein

April 17, 2013

Q&A With Fish & Richardson's Kurt Glitzenstein

April 17, 2013

Back to Q&A Listing

 

Fish Principal Kurt Glitzenstein sat down with Law360 to discuss his most challenging case, which fellow attorney left the strongest impression on him and more. Below is a highlight from the interview, or click here to view the full Q&A interview.

Mr. Glitzenstein is a principal in Fish & Richardson PC’s intellectual property litigation group where he focuses his practice on high technology patent and trademark litigation before the U.S. appellate courts, the U.S. district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission. He has experience in software, lasers, optics, telecommunications, medical products, industrial and systems control, semiconductors, and consumer products.


Law360: What is the most challenging case you have worked on and what made it challenging?

Glitzenstein : While every case poses a unique set of challenges, the one that really stands out for me is my work for Microsoft in the Uniloc v. Microsoft case. We measured events and milestones in that case not in years, but in the total number of children born to members of the team while the case was pending. The case spanned about nine years, during which Microsoft prevailed twice at the district court, and faced remands after two separate Federal Circuit appeals, each followed by a jury trial before different judges.

On the technical front, we had to come up with ways to educate the jury on the detailed operation of a technology central to cryptography and how communications are kept secure over the Internet. The animation we developed to explain those concepts ultimately found its way into one of the district court’s opinions siding with us on noninfringement, which to my knowledge is the first time a judicial opinion included a playable animation.

On the damages front, this case gave us the opportunity to put front-and-center on appeal two issues that we had fought over the years in many other cases: when it is proper to use, for any purpose, the total sales revenue of an accused product to assess damages, and whether it is ever proper to use the so-called “25 percent rule” as a basis for calculating reasonable royalty damages in a patent case. In my view, these two issues were among the main drivers for inflating damages demands in patent cases, and it was very gratifying to prevail on both on appeal. In the end, the appellate court reigned in the ability to rely on total sales revenue of accused products, and rejected outright the longstanding “25 percent rule” as a basis for calculating patent reasonable royalty damages.”

Attorney Bio

Headshot
Kurt L. Glitzenstein | Principal

Kurt Glitzenstein is the firm’s Litigation Practice Group Leader and is responsible for the firm’s largest practice, which spans twelve offices. In addition, Mr. Glitzenstein is a patent trial lawyer and leads cases in venues across the United States, including the...