Our Website Uses Cookies 


We and the third parties that provide content, functionality, or business services on our website may use cookies to collect information about your browsing activities in order to provide you with more relevant content and promotional materials, on and off the website, and help us understand your interests and improve the website.


For more information, please contact us or consult our Privacy Notice.

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.

  1. Home
  2. Professionals
  3. Richard L. Rainey
  1. Back

Richard L. Rainey

Partner
Richard Rainey
Washington +1 202 662 5565 rrainey@cov.com Download V-card
View Less

Richard Rainey has substantial experience representing clients in district court and ITC patent trials, and appeals of patent cases before the Federal Circuit. He has notable experience advising clients in the technology sector, and has handled cases involving a range of complex technologies. 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 and head of GE’s Intellectual Property Litigation Center of Excellence. Mr. Rainey also devotes considerable time to bar associations, and teaching and writing in the intellectual property field.

Mr. Rainey has led multiple IP litigation teams in a variety of forums around the U.S., and has been recognized as a leading IP litigator in numerous publications. IAM 1000 reports that Mr. Rainey 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, Mr. Rainey 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.”

Mr. Rainey has also been recognized as a leading advocate before the Federal Circuit. 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 Mr. Rainey 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). Mr. Rainey 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.

Federal Circuit Matters

  • 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).   
View More View Less

Memberships and Affiliations

  • The George Washington University Law School, Adjunct Professor of Law
  • Giles S. Rich Inn of Court, Officer
  • Elected to Four-Year Term on the Council for the ABA-Intellectual Property Law Section

Previous Experience

  • GE, Executive Counsel, Global IP Litigation
View Less
  • Law360, Intellectual Property MVP (2019) 
  • IAM Patent 1000 (2016) 
  • Legal 500 US, Cyber Law (2016)
  • Best Lawyers in America, Intellectual Property (2006-2012)
  • Chambers USA - America's Leading Business Lawyers, Intellectual Property (2019; 2008-2011)
  • Washington DC Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property (2008-2011)
  • Washingtonian, Best Lawyers (2011)

Practices

The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 1994

  • Order of the Coif
  • Winner of the 1994 Giles S. Rich Moot Court Competition

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, B.S., 1989

  • Hon. Roderick R. McKelvie, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 1994 - 1995
  • Hon. Randall R. Rader, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 1995 - 1996
  • District of Columbia
  • Georgia
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office