Subscribe

  • How Can We Help You?

    Global Problem Solving from Covington: Deal with Complex Problems Anywhere in the World

Calia_Kurt_1000x714_ENV

Kurt G. Calia

Partner

Palo Alto +1 650 632 4717

  • About
  • Representative Matters
  • Credentials
  • About

    Kurt Calia helps life sciences and technology clients resolve their most important intellectual property and complex litigation disputes. For more than two decades, Kurt has led trial teams, representing plaintiffs and defendants, in courts throughout the country, including the Court of Federal Claims and the International Trade Commission. He has significant appellate experience in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the 2nd, 6th, 8th, and 9th Circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court. Kurt specializes in translating complex technology and legal theories into effective advocacy across an unusually broad range of technologies—from pharmaceutical chemistry to semiconductors.

    In addition to his trial work, Kurt serves as a Managing Partner for Legal Personnel and Hiring Partner for the firm’s Palo Alto office, and on the firm’s Associate Advisory Committee. Kurt maintains an active pro bono practice, frequently writes and speaks on intellectual property issues, and has taught courses on intellectual property at Stanford Law School, Berkeley Law School, and Howard University Law School.

    Areas of Expertise

  • Practices and Industries
  • Representative Matters
    • Lundbeck A/S et al. v. Lupin Ltd. et al., No. 18-cv-0088-LPS (D. Del. 2018) (D. Del.): Trial counsel for Lundbeck and Takeda in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement case against sixteen generic drug manufacturers who sought regulatory approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Trintellix®, a blockbuster drug used to treat major depressive disorder.
    • Thales Visionix USA, Inc. v. United States (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2014): Lead counsel for defense of third-party defendant, Elbit Systems of America, LLC, in patent infringement dispute related to helmet mounted display systems used in in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. After seven years of litigation, after more than half of the asserted claims were invalidated in Patent Office proceedings, and in the face of summary judgment and sanctions motions pending against Thales, the case settled with Elbit paying nothing and the case dismissed.
    • Elbit Systems Land & C4I and Elbit Systems of America v. Hughes Network Systems (E.D. Tex. 2015): Lead trial counsel in a case brought by an Israeli defense contractor for the infringement of two patents related to satellite network communications by Hughes Network Systems. After a 6-day trial, the jury returned an award of $21 million, which after post-verdict royalties, costs and interest was worth approximately $30 million. After the jury verdict was affirmed on appeal, and before the district court's final accounting of all of the fees and costs due because of the exceptional case finding, the parties settled for $33 million.
    • Infernal Technology LLC et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc. et al. (E.D. Texas 2015): Representation of Electronic Arts in patent infringement litigation related to lighting and shadowing effects in computer graphic simulations.
    • Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington and University of Massachusetts (D. Ore. 2012): Lead counsel in the successful defense of Carnegie and the UMass in a patent inventorship claim concerning RNA interference—a foundational technology for which our client scientists were awarded the 2006 Nobel prize in medicine and physiology.
    • Swanson v. ALZA Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2012): Co-lead counsel in the successful defense of an inventorship dispute related to intellectual property rights to the blockbuster ADHD drug, Concerta©. After a favorable claim construction ruling, we secured summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s case.
    • In the Matter of Certain Light Emitting Devices, ITC Investigation 337-TA-785 (2011): Trial counsel for Samsung Electronics and Samsung LED in the defense against nine patents related to light-emitting diodes. After securing and then repeatedly defending (including at trial) a case-altering sanction that dramatically reduced the complaint’s case, the case settled on favorable terms.
    • Representation of Monsanto Company in numerous lawsuits involving patent, antitrust, contract, and/or trade secrets issues concerning genetically modified crops and herbicides. Monsanto Company et al. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. et al. (E.D. Mo. 2009); E.I. Du Pont and De Nemours Co. v. Monsanto Company and Asgrow Company (D. Del. 2000); Mycogen Plant Sciences, Inc. v. Monsanto (D. Del. 1998); Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Monsanto Company (E.D. Mo. 1997); Novartis Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Company (D. Del. 1997); Rhone-Poulenc Agro, SA v. DeKalb et al. (M.D.N.C. 1997); Monsanto v. Mycogen Plant Sciences et al. (D. Del. 1996).

    • Representation of Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) as an amicus in Federal Circuit and Supreme Court appeals in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology et al. v. United States Patent & Trademark Office (Fed. Cir. 2010, 2012) – patent appeal related to the patent-eligibility of DNA sequences and methods of screening cancer therapeutics.
    • Janssen L.P. et al. v. Barr Laboratories et al. (D.N.J. 2007), Janssen L.P. et al. v. KV Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D.N.J. 2007), Janssen L.P. et al. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., et al. (D.N.J. 2006), and Janssen L.P. et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. (D.N.J. 2006) - patent infringement actions related to Alzheimer’s disease drug, Razadyne®-ER.
    • Blackbird Technologies, Inc. v. Applied Security, Inc. et al. (Fairfax County Cir. Ct. 2007) - employee agreement contract dispute.
    • Representation of Maersk Logistics, USA in a patent infringement case involving six patents related to GPS-based monitoring and notification systems; the case settled on favorable terms -- Arrival Star, Inc. v. Maersk Logistics USA Inc., et al., Case No. 05-21046 (S.D. Fla.).
    • Representation of A.P. Møller-Maersk A/S in a patent/trade secret dispute concerning shipboard emissions scrubbers; after securing a TRO and preliminary injunction against the defendant, the case settled on favorable terms with all intellectual property rights assigned to our client -- A.P. Møller-Maersk A/S v. eScrub Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-1276 (E.D. Va.)
    • In re: ‘318 Patent Infringement Litigation (D. Del. 2005) - patent infringement case involving Alzheimer’s disease drug, Razadyne®.
    • Compuware Corp. v. OPNET Technologies, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2004) - patent infringement and trade secret cases related to network communication optimization technology.
    • Choice-Intersil Microsystems, Inc. v. Agere Systems, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2002), Agere Systems, Inc. v. Intersil Corp. and GlobespanVirata, Inc. (D. Del. 2002), and Agere Systems, Inc. v. Intersil Corp. and GlobespanVirata, Inc. (D. Del. 2003) - representation of GlobespanVirata in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement, copyright infringement, trade secret, misappropriation, and breach of contract concerning wireless communication and semiconductor technology.
    • Brazos Europe, Inc. v. Capital Resource Group (D.D.C. 2004) - securities fraud litigation.
    • Rosemary Ryan-House v. GlaxoSmithKline et al. (E.D. Va. 2003) - patent-antitrust claims related to the antibiotic, Augmentin®.
    • In re: Relafen Antitrust Action (D. Mass. 2003) - patent-antitrust matter related to the anti-inflammatory drug, Relafen®.
    • Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. et al. v. Molecular Analytical Systems, Inc. et al. (Santa Clara County Sup. Ct. 2003) - contract and trade secret litigation concerning surface enhanced laser desorption ionization technology.
    • Stendig v. Intermune, Inc. (San Francisco County Sup. Ct. 2003) - representation of Intermune in antitrust litigation concerning interferon-gamma drug, Actimmune®.
    • Caliper Technologies Corp. v. MDC, Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2002) - patent infringement related to kinase enzyme assays.
    • ARM, Ltd. v. picoTurbo, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2000) - patent infringement action related to RISC microprocessor core design.
    • Pitney Bowes v. Bell & Howell Co. (D. Del. 1999) - patent infringement action related to high-speed mail processing devices.
    • Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. ELI-Lederle, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 1996) and Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (D.N.J. 1996) - patent infringement actions related to potassium chloride supplement.

    Areas of Expertise

  • Credentials
    Education
    • Boston University School of Law, J.D., 1993
        • Boston University School of Law Journal of Science & Technology Law, Co-Founder
    • Haverford College, B.S., 1990
    Bar Admissions
    • California
    • District of Columbia
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
    Pro Bono
    • Representation of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in constitutional challenges to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (U.S. Supreme Court) and Michigan Legal Birth Definition Act (6th Cir.).
    • Representation of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in constitutional challenge to New Hampshire parental notification law (U.S. Supreme Court).
    • Representation of the Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition in administrative litigation opposing proposed conversion of healthcare organization from non-profit to for-profit status in Washington State and Alaska.
    • Representation of the California Medical Association, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and individual physicians in constitutional challenges to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (N.D. Cal., 2nd Cir., 8th Cir., and 9th Cir.).
    • Long-running (nearly twenty years) representation of Alabama death row inmate in post-conviction proceedings.
    • Representation of D.C. Appleseed in litigation legislation related to healthcare insurance reform.
    • Representation of a death row inmate at San Quentin in an excessive use of force and equal protection claim.
    • Representation of Sudanese lawyer in political asylum application.
    • Gray v. Poole et al. (D.D.C. 1999) (D.C. Cir. 2000) - representation of corporation counsel lawyer in defending prior prosecution of child neglect action.
    • Center to Prevent Handgun Violence v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury et al., (D.D.C. 1996) - FOIA litigation related to multiple handgun sales records.
    • Representation of D.C. Jail inmate in a murder trial.
    Accolades
    • Daily Journal, “Top Intellectual Property Lawyers” (2020-2023, 2016)
    • Daily Journal, "Top Trade Secret Lawyers" (2020, 2022)
    • Managing Intellectual Property "IP Stars," Trade mark and Patent - CA (2019)
    • IAM Patent 1000 - The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners (2015-2016)
    • Recognized by Legal 500 US in Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (2009-2017) and Intellectual Property - Patent Prosecution (2013)
    • Northern California Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property (2013, 2018)
    Memberships and Affiliations
    • Kurt previously served as the Vice Chair of the Trade Secrets Committee of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO).

    Areas of Expertise

News and Insights

Events