Covington & Burling LLP operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide, with the practice in England and Wales conducted by an affiliated
limited liability multinational partnership, Covington & Burling LLP, which is formed under the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States
and authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 77071..
Richard Rainey is a trial and appellate IP litigator who has been lead counsel in numerous high-profile cases in district courts, before the ITC, and at the Federal Circuit. Law360 named Richard a 2019 MVP for his “extraordinary” trial and appellate wins and contribution to IP litigation. His ability to provide holistic and practical solutions in patent disputes is enhanced by his in-house experience, having served as GE’s Global Chief IP Litigator. Richard also devotes considerable time to bar associations and teaching and writing in the intellectual property field.
IAM 1000 reports that Richard is "unafraid of shouldering the greatest of responsibilities and is another natural choice for big-ticket cases in which business resolutions are urgently required." According to Chambers, Richard is “laud[ed] as ‘an exceptional orator’ who ‘has both deep technical knowledge and the ability to boil an issue down to a layman’s understanding.”
Over the course of his career, he has been involved in more than 75 appeals in patent cases before the Federal Circuit. Clients have called on Richard when faced with challenging trial verdicts, MuniAuction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reversing an $85 million jury verdict, earning recognition in AmLaw); Dominion Energy, Inc., et al. v. Alstom Grid LLC, 725 Fed. Appx. 980 (Fed. Cir. March 15, 2018) (reversing a jury verdict and permanent injunction), as well as when seeking to defend important trial victories, Elbit Sys. Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, 927 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming a $21 million jury verdict). Richard also co-led the Covington team which obtained a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court in Return Mail v. U.S. Postal Service, 159 U.S. 1853 (June 10, 2019), holding that the federal government is not a "person" capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the America Invents Act.
Richard, as a registered patent attorney, has also had substantial experience before the PTAB in various post-grant proceedings.
In addition to his work as a litigator, Richard has for many years been an officer in the Giles S. Rich Inn of Court, served in the leadership of the ABA-IPL Section, and chaired the committee of the year for IPO. He is a co-author on the leading treatise on practice and procedure before the Federal Circuit – “Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Practice and Procedure” and a co-author on the chapter on appellate practice in BNA’s “Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook.” Richard also teaches patent enforcement at George Washington Law School.
Obtained affirmance of a $21 million jury verdict for Elbit in a patent case involving satellite internet technology. Elbit Sys. Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, 927 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Obtained reversal of a jury verdict of willful infringement and a permanent injunction for Alstom Grid in a case involving grid management software. Dominion Energy, Inc., et al. v. Alstom Grid LLC, No. 17-1158 (Fed. Cir. March 15, 2018).
Obtained affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement for GE in a case involving turbine blade manufacturing methods. Oleksy v. GE, No. 16-1149 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2016).
Achieved a reversal of summary judgment of invalidity for GE in a case involving LED heat sink patents. GE Lighting Solutions LLC v. Lights of Am., Inc., 663 Fed.Appx. 938 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Attained a reversal of summary judgment of non-infringement for GE in a case involving LED technology in GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F. 3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Obtained affirmance of a summary judgment that GE was licensed under the asserted patents in a case involving LED technology in Relume v. GE, No. 14-1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Achieved a reversal of a significant judgment and permanent injunction against DeMonte Fabricating in a patent case involving segmented truck covers. Sundance v. DeMonte Fabricating, et al., 550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Obtained a reversal of an $85 million judgment and permanent injunction against Thomson Reuters and i-Deal in a patent case involving electronic municipal bond auctions. MuniAuction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., et al., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Represented Juniper Networks obtaining affirmance of a judgment of non-infringement in a patent case involving network technology. Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 2574744 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (non-precedential) (affirming judgment of non-infringement).
Attained a reversal of an $80 million judgment against United Catalysts. Southern Clay Products v. United Catalysts, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1606, 2002 WL 1733333 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (nonprecedential).
Defended SmithKline Beecham in a patent dispute regarding the purification process of pertactin, an active ingredient in a type of pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine. The matter involved patent defense as well as litigation with the Food and Drug Administration. Connaught Lab., Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham P.L.C., 165 F.3d 1368, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Achieved a vacatur of a preliminary injunction against Titan Wheel Corporation, a manufacturer of off-highway wheels, in a patent infringement action relating to automotive locking differentials. Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int'l, Inc., 141 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
ITC Section 337 Matters
Represented Current and GE (complainants) in a patent infringement action against Cree involving LED lighting technology. In the Matter of Certain LED Packages Containing PFS Phosphor and Products Containing Same, No. 337-TA-1156.
Representing Hanwha (complainant) in a patent infringement action against LONGi, REC, and Jinko Solar involving solar cells. In the Matter of Certain Photovoltaic Cells and Products Containing Same, No. 337-TA-1151.
Represented Samsung (respondent) in a patent infringement action at the ITC and Federal Circuit involving hierarchical menus for music players in which the ITC held the claims invalid under Section 101 in a special 100-day proceeding. In the Matter of Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-994.
Represented a number of respondents, including Samsung Electronics, in a patent infringement action at the ITC brought by BTG involving MLC NAND Flash memory. In re Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-683.
Represented Respondent in a patent infringement action at the ITC. In re Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-658.
Represented Samsung Electronics (respondent) in a patent infringement action at the ITC brought by Prof. Rothschild involving the manufacture of LEDs and LDs. In re Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-640.
Represented Intersil (respondent) in a patent infringement action at the ITC brought by Proxim involving 802.11 products. In re Certain Network Interface Cards and Access Points for use in Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum Wireless Local Area Networks and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-455.
Represented ASML (respondent) in a patent infringement action at the ITC brought by Nikon involving semiconductor manufacturing machines. In re Certain Microlithographic Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-468.
District Court Matters
Represented Samsung in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Virginia and the Federal Circuit against SmarTEN asserting patents directed to diet and exercise systems in which the district court held all claims invalid as directed to unpatentable subject matter on a Rule 12 motion. SmarTEN LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 1:17cv1381, 2018 WL 1368268 (E.D. Va. March 16, 2018), and the Federal Circuit affirmed via Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Represented Knowles in a breach of settlement agreement action involving MEMS microphones for mobile phones in the Northern District of Illinois. Knowles v. AAC, (N.D. Ill.).
Represented Samsung in a patent infringement action involving mobile phones in the Southern District of New York. Sentegra v. Samsung, (S.D.N.Y.).
Represented comScore in a patent infringement action against Nielson involving web monitoring in the Eastern District of Virginia. comScore, Inc. v. Nielsen, (E.D. Va.).
Represented Samsung in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas involving DLP televisions. Cheetah Omni LLC v. Samsung Electronics, (E.D. Tex.).
Represented Samsung, obtaining a stay pending reexamination on behalf of Samsung Electronics, in a patent infringement case in the Southern District of New York brought by Genoa Color Technologies involving DLP televisions. Genoa Color Tech., Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., et al. (S.D.N.Y.).
Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas brought by Charles E. Hill involving e-commerce web sites. Charles E. Hill & Assoc. v. Microsoft et al., (E.D. Tex.).
Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement action brought by MedioStream involving patents relating to video conversion technology asserted against Microsoft's Movie Maker product. MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex.). Obtained transfer of this matter to the N. D. Cal on a writ of mandamus. See In re Acer, cite.
Obtained transfer of a patent infringement action involving financial services products initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) to the District of Arizona under the MDL procedure on behalf of JPMorgan Chase Bank. Phoenix Licensing v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., (E.D. Tex.).
Obtained a temporary restraining order on behalf of ALZA, the world's leader in controlled release pharmaceuticals, barring a generic pharmaceutical company from employing one of ALZA's scientists in making a generic version of one of ALZA's drugs under a theory of inevitable disclosure. ALZA v. Andrx, (S.D. Fla. 1999).
Back
