This website uses cookies. For more information please contact us or consult our privacy policy.

Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.

We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.

This page has been added to your binder.

Robert Haslam
Robert T. Haslam
Senior Counsel
Silicon Valley +1 650 632 4702 rhaslam@cov.com Download V-card

Robert Haslam is senior counsel in the firm’s Silicon Valley office. His practice has emphasized trial work involving patent and trade secret litigation and other related high technology disputes. He has represented clients in litigation involving a range of arts and practices, including semiconductor products and processes, cryptography, GPS and cellular technology, electronic circuits, microprocessors and software products, and medical devices and other life science products. He has tried cases in both federal and state court. In addition, Mr. Haslam advises clients on strategies relating to intellectual property matters.

  • Representation of Huawei Technologies in trade secret lawsuits against Motorola Solutions involving wireless base station technology; obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the transfer of confidential information in the context of a corporate acquisition.
  • Representation of Samsung entities in the Section 337 ITC Investigation In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices Including Handheld Wireless Communication Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-673, involving interrupt control circuitry, keypad monitoring, and interprocessor communications.
  • Ariba v. Emptoris. Secured a jury verdict for Ariba Inc., including a finding that two patents involving online auction technology were valid and infringed.
  • Sky Technologies v. Ariba Inc.  Represented Ariba in Boston in patent infringement litigation on two patents relating to automated negotiation software.  Case settled favorably two weeks into trial.
  • Advanced Micro Devices v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, et al.  Represent Samsung entities in patent litigation defending against 7 AMD patents allegedly infringed by potentially 15,000 products and in asserting 6 Samsung patents against AMD.
  • Agere Systems, Inc. v. Atmel Corp.  Major victory in March 2005 on behalf of long-time client Atmel in a Philadelphia federal court jury trial in Agere v. Atmel.  Agere claimed that Atmel infringed four semiconductor patents, including what it touted as its key tungsten patents.  Agere sought damages of approximately $200 million as well as enhancement for claimed willful infringement.  After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in Atmel’s favor, invalidating the tungsten patents, finding the fourth not infringed as well as invalid, and awarding Agere zero in damages.
  • Globespan Virata v. Texas Instruments, Inc.  Obtained a jury verdict of $112 million for Texas Instruments and Stanford University for infringement of patents involving high speed DSL modem technology.
  • Cisco v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.  Represented Huawei, the largest Chinese telecom equipment manufacturer, in a suit brought by Cisco Systems in Marshall, Texas.  The suit involved patent infringement, copyright and trade secret claims relating to the software for network routers.  Defeated preliminary injunction seeking worldwide ban on distributing product.
  • Atmel Corporation v. Silicon Storage Technology (SST), C-96-00039 SC (N.D. Cal.).  Represented Atmel in this patent infringement action.  The patents relate to circuits and memory cell designs for flash memory and EEPROMs.
  • Zoltar Satellite Systems, Inc. v. Snaptrack, Inc. and QUALCOMM CORP., (United States District Court, Northern District of California).  Won a favorable jury verdict on behalf of SnapTrack and QUALCOMM in a three-week jury trial in this patent infringement action.  The case involved patents asserted against services that permit calls to the “911” emergency number to be tracked using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology.
  • Linear Technology Corporation v. Unitrode Corporation, C98-1727 VRW (N.D. Cal.).  Represented Unitrode Corporation, an affiliate of Texas Instruments, in this patent infringement case involving “sleep mode” and current reversal protection aspects of voltage regulators.
  • Overture Services Corporation v. Google.  Represented Overture Services Corporation, a subsidiary of Yahoo!, in patent litigation against Google.
  • MCI, et al. v. AT&T Corp., 97-CV-4453 (E.D. Pen.).  Represented MCI in this case involving interactive telephone and computer telephony services.
  • Stambler v. First Data Corporation (United States District Court, District of Delaware) No. 01-0065.  Represented First Data Corporation in patent infringement litigation relating to patents asserted against the issuance of digital certificates and secure payment systems enabling e-commerce transactions.
  • In the Matter of Certain Programmable Logic Devices And Products Containing Same, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-453.  Represented Altera in this investigation involving patents concerning programmable logic devices.
  • Altiris v. Symantec Corporation, 2:99CV-1007ST (C.D. Utah).  Represented Symantec in patent infringement litigation relating to a patent claiming functionality whereby a system administrator of a network can interrupt the normal boot process and, for example, remotely update computers on the network.
  • Centillion Data Systems Inc. v. MCI WorldCom Inc., et al., IP98-C-1754 (S.D. Ind.).  Represented MCI WorldCom in this case involving two billing system software patents.
  • RSA Data Security, Inc. v. Network Associates, Inc. and Pretty Good Privacy, Inc., 97- 03755 MHP (N.D. Cal.).  Represented RSA in this case involving public key encryption technology.
  • ECI Telecom Ltd. v. Amati Communications Corporation, Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, No. CV 775377.  Represented Amati, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Texas Instruments, in this action involving technology relating to high-speed modems and the issue of assigning certain intellectual property rights relating to the technology developed during the course of the parties’ contractual relationship.
  • RSA Data Security, Inc. v. Cylink Corporation, C-96-20094 SW (N.D. Cal.).  Represented RSA in litigation involving patent infringement and related claims involving public key and related encryption software technology that has become central to electronic commerce over the Internet.
  • In the Matter of Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, etc., Investigation No. 337-TA-395 (ITC).  Represented Atmel as complainant in an unfair trade practice claim relating to patents on EEPROM and Flash circuits and memory cell designs.  The respondents are Sanyo, Macronix, and Winbond.
  • Advanced Micro Devices v. Atmel Corporation, C-88-20528-WAI (N.D. Cal.); Atmel v. AMD, C-90-20013-TEH (N.D. Cal.); Seeq Technology v. Atmel, C-88-20600-RMW (N.D. Cal.); Atmel v. Seeq Technology, C-90-20012-WAI (N.D. Cal.); Intel Corporation v. Hyundai Electronics, et al., C-87-20534-WAI (N.D. Cal.); and In the Matter of Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories, etc., Investigation No. 337-TA-276 (ITC).  The cases related to EPROMS, EEPROMS, and programmable logic devices (PLD’s) and logic transition circuits.  Acted as trial counsel in all but the Intel case, in which Mr. Haslam acted as co-counsel on certain issues.  In addition to the district court litigation, Intel also commenced parallel ITC proceedings seeking an exclusion order.  Acted as co-counsel on issues arising after entry of an exclusion and cease and desist order.
  • General Instruments, Inc. v. Atmel Corporation, C-88-5678 (S.D.N.Y.); and Atmel Corporation v. General Instruments, Inc., C-88-7630 (S.D.N.Y.).  Represented Atmel in litigation concerning disputes arising out of a development agreement with General Instruments.  The issues related to EPROM and EEPROM processes and circuit design.
  • Informix Software, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, No. 9701-00568, (Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon).  Represented Informix in litigation involving trade secrets, unfair competition and related claims.  The case arose out of the hiring by Oracle of 13 engineers from Informix’s Portland development lab.
  • Intel Corp. v. Chips and Technologies, Inc., Texas Instruments, C-92-20111-JW (N.D. Cal.), C-92-20112-JW (N.D. Cal.).  Represented TI and Chips in this patent infringement action brought by Intel.  Intel sought preliminary and permanent relief to stop Chips from manufacturing and selling its 386 compatible microprocessor and its 387 compatible math co-processor.
  • Raychem v. Thomas & Betts, C-91-20788-RMW, C-92-20549-RMW (N.D. Cal.).  Represented Raychem in this patent infringement action.  The three patents in dispute involved technology basic to a line of Raychem’s telecommunications products.
  • Represented Raychem in two other cases involving competitors marketing similar products.  Raychem v. Communications Technology Corporation, C-92-04320-EFL (N.D. Cal.); and Raychem v. PSI Telecommunications, Inc., C-93-20920-RPA (N.D. Cal.).
  • Biogenex Laboratories v. Biotek Solutions, Inc., C-95-0810 TEH (N.D. Cal.).  Represented Biotek in this patent infringement action.  The patent relates to the field of immunohistology or immunohistochemistry, and particularly to a claimed method of antigen retrieval in formalin fixed tissue.
  • U.S. Surgical v. Origin Medsystems, Inc., 27 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1526 (N.D. Cal. 1993).  Represented Origin Medsystems (now a part of Guidant) in this patent infringement and trade secret action.  The case involved a patent on a laporoscopic medical instrument, a retracting tip trocar.
  • In the Matter of Eastman Kodak v. Cetus Corporation, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., AAA Arbitration.  Represented Cetus and Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. in connection with a dispute relating to rights to the technology pioneered by Cetus in the field of amplification of nucleic acid sequences (commonly referred to as PCR technology).
  • Raychem v. Judd Wire, C-95-4487 SI (N.D. Cal.).  Represented Raychem in this patent infringement action relating to technology for insulating layers for wire used in aircraft.
  • James A. Patterson v. Advanced Polymer Systems, Inc., et al., C-93-20920 JW-PVT (N.D. Cal.).  Represented APS and other individual defendants in an action seeking, inter alia, to invalidate four APS patents.  The patents related generally to the use of a certain type of porous polymeric substrate for, among other things, the timed release delivery of pharmaceuticals or cosmetics.
  • Andrews Corporation v. United, C-94-372C (Court of Claims).  Represented Technology for Communications International (TCI) as a third party in patent infringement litigation brought by Andrews against the United States.  The case involved high frequency antennae sold by TCI to the government for military applications.
  • Decision Data Holdings, Ltd., et al. v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, et al., C-91-0435 FMS (N.D. Cal.).  Represented Texas Instruments with respect to trade secret and copyright claims arising out of the development by TI of an interpreter program, which permits software developed to run on Qantel hardware to run in a UNIX environment on a TI platform.
  • Tencor Instruments v. Eastman Technology, Inc., et al., C-89-20430-WAI (N.D. Cal.).  Represented Tencor Instruments in a patent infringement suit against Eastman Technology, a subsidiary of Eastman-Kodak.  The subject matter of the patent in suit is a wafer inspection system, which scans processed semiconductor wafers for surface imperfections.
  • UNIX Systems Laboratories v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc., et al., 27 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1721 (N.J. Dist. 1993).  Represented BSDI in this copyright and trade secret action.  The action involved claims that BSDI’s UNIX operating system violated USL’s operating system copyright, and that BSDI misappropriated USL’s alleged trade secrets in its source code.
  • Comora v. Thoratec Laboratories Corporation, C-92-0182-SBA (N.D. Cal.).  Represented Thoratec in this patent infringement action involving an artificial heart device.
  • Atmel v. Information Storage Devices, 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  The Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling finding Atmel’s ‘811 patent invalid for indefiniteness.  The ‘811 patent was then the basis of a $36.5 million judgment against SST in another case.
  • Winbond v. ITC, 262 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  The Federal Circuit affirmed the issuance of an International Trade Commission exclusion order barring the importation of infringing flash and other memory chips and circuit boards.
  • Atmel v. Silicon Storage Technology (SST) (Fed. Cir. 2003).  In an unpublished opinion, the Federal Circuit upheld a $36.5 million judgment in favor of Atmel following a jury verdict for willful infringement.
  • Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix Incorporated, et al., 149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Represented Identix in this patent infringement action.  The patent relates to a method of generating from an optical imaging system, a digital representation of fingerprints for law enforcement and related fields.
  • Cygnus Therapeutics Systems v. ALZA Corporation, 92 F.3d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  Represented ALZA in litigation involving claims that its patent on a transdermal fentanyl patch was unenforceable and invalid and that it had committed antitrust violations in enforcing that patent.
  • Sullivan & Associates, et al. v. Raychem, et al., CV-387993 (Superior Court, County of San Mateo).  Represented Raychem against claims for breach of contract relating to an agreement to conduct an IP portfolio audit.
  • McNamara & Peepe Corporation, et al. v. Bank of America, C-85-463 (Superior Court, County of Del Norte); Eleanor McNamara, et al. v. Bank of America, C-84-275 (Superior Court, County of Del Norte); and William Peepe, et al. v. Bank of America, C-84-273 (Superior Court, County of Del Norte).  Successfully defended Bank of America in a four-month trial for lender liability seeking damages in excess of $60 million.
  • In re Consolidated Asbestos Insurance Coverage Cases, 20 Cal. App. 4th 296 (1993), on remand, (remand sub. nom.) Armstrong World Indus. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 45 Cal. App. 4th 1 (1996).  Represented Johns-Manville in an insurance coverage dispute relating to asbestos bodily injury claims.  Acted as trial counsel for one-year Phase III trial, which resulted in obtaining comprehensive coverage for J-M.  J-M ultimately settled for more than $700 million in recovery or guaranteed coverage.  Subsequently specially retained by another plaintiff for Phase V property damage trial.

Memberships and Affiliations

  • State Bar of California 
  • American Bar Association
  • Bay Area Intellectual Property Inns of Court
  • American College of Trial Lawyers, Fellow
  • Northern District Patent Rules Revision, Chair
  • Patent Rules Revision Committee, Chair (2000)
  • California Lawyer, “Attorney of the Year” (2012)
  • Chambers Global, Intellectual Property: Patent (2014-2016)
  • Chambers USA - America's Leading Business Lawyers, Intellectual Property/Patent (2009-2015)
  • IAM Patent 1000 - The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners (2015-2016)
  • The AmLaw Litigation Daily, "Litigator of the Week" (4/15/2011)
  • Daily Journal, Top IP Litigators in California (2008-2011)
  • The Best Lawyers in America (2009-2017)
  • Euromoney's Benchmark Litigation, National Star for IP litigation and CA State Star (2013-2014)
  • Top 100, Northern California Super Lawyers (2014)
  • Northern California Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation (2009-2016)
  • Guide to the World's Leading Patent Law Practitioners (2009)
  • Who's Who Legal, Patents (2012-2016)
  • Legal 500 US, Recognized for Patent Litigation: Full Coverage (2014-2016) and International Trade Commission (2012-2014)   
  • United States Lawyer Rankings, Nation's Top 10 Intellectual Property Lawyers (2007)
  • San Francisco and Los Angeles Daily Journal, "Brain Trust of 25 Lawyers Who Comprise the State's Best and Brightest" intellectual property lawyers in California (2003)
  • The Recorder, "Go To" patent litigators in Northern California (2003)