Orrick logo
  1. Home
  2. People
  3. Herman, K. Patrick

K. Patrick Herman

Of Counsel

New York

K. Patrick Herman, located in the New York office, is a member of the Intellectual Property Group.

Patrick's practice focuses on complex patent and other intellectual property litigation. He has had extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants, and has been involved in all phases of litigation, from developing initial strategy through appeal.  Patrick has appeared in intellectual property cases before a variety of different federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the International Trade Commission. Applying his engineering background, he has represented clients in a range of industries, including the medical device, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, automotive, consumer electronics, and children’s toy industries.

Patrick's practice also extends to pre-litigation counseling, including rendering opinions relating to patentability, infringement, validity, and freedom-to-operate issues.

    • Toyota in multiple cases originally involving 24 patents and various vehicle-related technologies.  Several of the asserted patents were held unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in view of inter partes review petitions filed by Toyota and the concurrent district court proceeding was eventually dismissed in its entirety. American Vehicular Sciences v. Toyota  (PTAB and E.D. Mich.)
    • Barnes & Noble in defending its NOOK eReader products from claims of patent infringement made by Microsoft in the ITC concerning various hardware and software patents. In the Matter of Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof (ITC)
    • Delphi in patent litigation resulting in granted summary judgment of invalidity of four separate patents in favor of client. Automotive Technologies International v. Delphi et al. (E.D. Mich.)
    • Boston Scientific Corporation in an action against Cordis and Johnson & Johnson concerning drug-eluting stents, resulting in a grant of summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Boston Scientific Corp. and Boston Scientific Scimed v. Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corp. (D. Del.)
    • Infineum USA in the assertion of its patent on petroleum additives against Afton Chemical Company. Infineum Int’l Ltd. & Infineum USA v. Afton Chem. (D. Del.)
    • Fisher-Price and Mattel in a patent litigation trial that resulted in the court finding that the client did not infringe LeapFrog’s patent, and that the patent was invalid. The ruling was affirmed on appeal. LeapFrog Enterprises v. Fisher-Price et al. (D. Del., Fed. Cir.)