Theodore Stevenson, III

• Won a defense verdict for Ericsson in the first jury-related breach of FRAND case related to cellular patents in the Eastern District of Texas. HTC brought the case challenging that Ericsson’s royalty rates for its global portfolio of 4G essential patents were excessive. The jury rejected all of HTC’s arguments and found that Ericsson’s royalty rates, which were $2.50 per phone or 1 percent with a cap and floor, in compliance with FRAND. The district court confirmed the verdict with a detailed declaratory judgment that held that Ericsson fully complied with FRAND and rejecting all HTC’s theories of recovery. The case is currently on appeal. HTC v. Ericsson.
• Represented PanOptis in a patent infringement and breach of FRAND jury trial in which PanOptis asserted its 4G essential and H.264 patents against the second largest seller of cell phones worldwide. The jury found five patents were willfully infringed by the defendant and awarded damages. Based on the verdict of willful infringement, plus its finding that the defendant resorted to gamesmanship in its defense of the case, the district court found it to be an exceptional case and awarded PanOptis attorney fees. For the damages case, a bottoms up valuation model was presented that isolated the technical benefit of the PanOptis patents individually, financially quantified the technical benefit, and applied that to the defendant’s phones to determine the reasonable royalty that should have been paid resulting in royalties awarded by the jury of just under $3 per phone. PanOptis v. Huawei.
• Represented Ericsson in its global licensing dispute in which the defendant obtained a secret anti-suit injunction from the Wuhan Intermediate Court in China purporting to prevent Ericsson from seeking a FRAND adjudication or an injunction on any of its standard essential patents. Obtained a highly publicized anti-interference injunction from the Eastern District of Texas preventing the defendant from enforcing its anti-suit injunction, and ordering indemnity. The dispute also involved numerous patents asserted by both parties in district court, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and in foreign venues. The matter settled recently for a confidential amount. Ericsson v. Samsung.
• Asserted eight patents owned by Nokia covering H.264 video coding technology against Lenovo in litigation pending in the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Northern District of California, and the Eastern District of North Carolina. The case settled prior to the initial ITC hearing. Nokia v. Lenovo.
• Defended Ericsson against breach of FRAND and antitrust claims brought by one of the top 10 cell phone manufacturers in the world. Counter-asserted Ericsson patents related to cell phone security features against the plaintiff, and won a jury verdict of willful infringement and a nine-figure judgment. Defended Ericsson in a bench trial in California district court, and recently won an appeal from the Federal Circuit remanding the case and holding that the California district court should have held a jury trial. TCL v. Ericsson.
• Defended a U.S.-based multinational telecommunications company against allegations of patent infringement under patents the plaintiff alleged covered downloading of ringtones to cell phones. Took a trial deposition of the inventor, who was outside the district. The next business day following the cross of the inventor, the plaintiff decided to walk away and voluntarily dismiss its case with prejudice.
• Represented Unwired Planet in a jury trial asserting three patents related to location services, app store technology, and speeding up web browsing. Handled jury selection in district court in San Francisco, and before opening statements were scheduled to commence, the case was settled. Unwired Planet v. Apple.
• Won a jury verdict against Intel and a number of its customers in a patent infringement case involving 802.11 wifi standard essential patents. Following the jury trial, the court held a bench trial to adjudicate defendants' assertions of RAND violations, after which it ruled in favor of Ericsson finding no RAND violation. The case was affirmed as to liability on appeal and remanded for a new trial on damages. Ericsson v. DLink.

Ted is a partner in the Intellectual Property Litigation Group. He is a trial lawyer and registered patent attorney who has been focused on IP and competition cases for over 25 years. Ted has extensive federal trial experience, having tried over 25 patent and technology cases involving diverse technologies such as cellular telephones, balloon angioplasty catheters, integrated circuits, hydraulic fracturing, and enterprise software. Ted is one of the world's foremost patent attorneys in cases alleging competitive violations in patent licensing, having handled six trials and an arbitration adjudicating whether proposed royalties for standard essential patent portfolios complied with fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory statutes (FRAND). Many of the world's leading innovators turn to Ted to defend their licensing programs from claims of anti-competition behavior.

Ted is ranked as one of the "Top 100" trial lawyers in the nation and a “Local Litigation Star” for commercial and IP litigation by Benchmark Litigation. He is ranked Band 1 by Chambers USA for IP litigation nationwide and Band 2 by Chambers Global for patent litigation. Chambers describes Ted as a “fantastic trial lawyer,” who is “great before a jury,” and “really good at being able to articulate a complex case in a way a jury can understand and resonate with.” Texas Lawyer Magazine has recognized Ted as one of the five “go-to” intellectual property litigators in the state.

Bar Admissions

• Texas
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Education

• University of Virginia (J.D., 1988)
• Northwestern University (B.S., 1985)

Memberships