Having tried more than 30 cases over the past three decades, Steve Routh has built a reputation as a master strategist and courtroom storyteller. In recognition of his accomplishments, since 2007 he has been a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, widely considered the premier professional trial organization in America with membership limited to one percent or fewer of each state's practicing lawyers.

Steve knows how to minimize risk while delivering a client’s business objective, by either defeating an opponent’s case at trial or through strategic motions or by negotiating the best possible settlement. His ability to pinpoint the argument which will resonate with each judge and jury has enabled him to protect cutting-edge technology involving semiconductor devices and manufacturing processes, telecommunications, digital and 3D imaging, liquid crystal displays, and medical devices. He has also used those same skills in litigating numerous antitrust, unfair competition, and complex tort and contract cases.

For the last 15 years, Steve has focused on guiding Japanese and other Asia-based companies through patent litigation before the ITC and U.S. District Courts. He is one of only two lawyers ranked in the Chambers Global guide for having Foreign Expertise in Intellectual Property for Japan. He is singled out for his wealth of experience acting for Japan-based clients, and is described as a "great negotiator who is excellent at creating litigation strategy." Steve is also a Chambers USA recognized IP practitioner.

  • Steve's Representative Experience

    • Hologic Corp. v. Fujifilm Corp., et al. and Fujifilm Corp., et al. v. Hologic Corp.: We represent Fujifilm in an ITC investigation based on a complaint by Hologic on patents that cover 3D imaging technologies used in mammography. We conducted trial on Hologic’s claims to an ALJ in April 2018 and are awaiting his Initial Determination. We also represent Fujifilm in a Delaware litigation that we initiated in February 2018 alleging infringement of four Fujifilm mammography patents as well as antitrust and unfair competition claims. 
    • Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies, Inc. v. General Motors, et al,: We represent DENSO Corp. in a copyright action brought by AARC in the D.C. District Court asserting claims against infotainment systems sold by DENSO for use in automobiles. We have taken a lead role in developing and implementing strategy that led to a March 2018 summary judgment ruling in favor of defendants on all claims. We currently are awaiting an expected appeal by AARC.
    • Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., et al.: We represented Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Konica Minolta, Olympus, LG Electronics, Ricoh, Fujifilm, Sigma, Best Buy, Micro Electronics, Overstock.com, and Target in a C.D. California action alleging infringement of a digital image processing patent and successfully obtain an early summary judgment that the asserted patents did not address patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. That judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
    • Rothschild v. Panasonic Corp.: We secured a complete victory for Panasonic in an ITC Investigation regarding laser diodes and light-emitting diodes. Shortly before trial, Complainant withdrew its complaint entirely, terminating the investigation without any payment or concession by Panasonic. Most of the 39 other respondents had settled or entered into consent orders.
    • Intellectual Ventures, Inc. v. Ricoh Americas Corp.: We represented Ricoh in a Delaware patent infringement action brought by IV. After a successful Markman ruling and completion of discovery, we achieved a settlement on terms favorable to our client. We have also represented a number of other clients in licensing negotiations with IV that have resulted in positive outcomes for our clients.
    • Advanced Research Corp Inc. v. Fujifilm Corp., et al.: We represented Fujifilm and Oracle Corp. in an ITC investigation brought in response to a complaint by ARC asserting patents on high density digital recording media. Based on our successful pre-hearing discovery and motions strategies, we achieved a settlement shortly before a scheduled merits hearing on terms favorable to our clients.
    • Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T, Inc. et al.: Soon after it acquired the ADAPTIX 4G wireless patent portfolio, patent holding group Acacia, Inc. started filing suits against major network and electronics suppliers. We represented LG Electronics and AT&T against ADAPTIX in the Eastern District of Texas and won a complete summary judgment freeing AT&T and LG of all claims, on the grounds that ADAPTIX cannot base infringement allegations for all smartphones on the same 4G LTE industry standard. The decision is important for companies that make or sell standard-compliant products.
    • St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. Fujifilm Corporation: We represented Fujifilm in a seven-year battle against St. Clair with respect to four image compression patents. Following a positive jury verdict in Delaware District Court, we obtained a ruling by the Federal Circuit construing key limitations of the patents-in-suit in favor of Fujifilm, thereby avoiding any past or future infringement claims against our client, while many other defendants had paid millions of dollars in settlements.
    • Fujifilm Corporation v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG: We represent Fujifilm in this patent infringement litigation involving digital cameras. Our team has been appointed by the Court as lead coordinating counsel for a joint defense group in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding and, in that capacity, we have developed and implemented strategies to defeat claims filed by Papst beginning in 2007.   We recently prevailed on eight IPRs attacking the validity of two recently issued Papst patents. Additional IPRs remain pending, and we have successfully positioned the district court MDL for dispositive motions on any claims that survive USPTO review.
    • Princeton Digital Image Compression v. Canon, Inc., et al.: We represented Fujifilm in an action on patents related to compression of digital images. We first successfully moved to transfer the case from ED Texas to SDNY, and then developed a strong standing defense through discovery that led to a successful motion for summary judgment that disposed of the case.
    • Affinity Labs of Texas v. JVC Americas and Kenwood USA: We represented JVC and Kenwood in a case involving patents covering technology that allows iPods to connect to home stereos, TVs and car radio “head units.” Based on successful pre-trial motions and strategies, we were able to settle the case on favorable terms on the eve of trial.
    • Saxon Innovations LLC v. Panasonic Corp.: We represented Panasonic in both an ITC investigation and a later district court action filed by Saxon on patents covering integrated circuit technology. Saxon voluntarily terminated its ITC complaint against Panasonic in response to our successful discovery and pre-hearing motion strategy. We then settled the district court action on favorable terms.
    • Norman IP Holdings LLC v. Canon USA, Inc.: We represented Fujifilm and Konica Minolta in action filed on patents covering integrated circuit technology. Settled the case on favorable terms before Markman proceedings began.
    • InMotion Imagery Technologies, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America: We represented Panasonic in action on patents covering a system for indexing video content. Settled the case on favorable terms before Markman proceedings.
    • FastVDO v. Leading Technology Company, et al.: We defended Fujifilm, Nikon, Panasonic, and Thomson Video Networks from the plaintiff’s patent infringement concerning the H.264 digital image compression standard. We argued for claim constructions that excluded the asserted patent from the scope of the H.264 standard. Only three days after the claim construction hearing, the court issued a favorable ruling adopting our constructions on all critical terms.
    • Infinity Computer Products v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions, et al.: We represent Konica Minolta in an action filed on two patents covering technology for using a facsimile machine coupled to a personal computer as a scanner or printer. Filed a successful motion to stay the case pending reexaminations.
    • Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation: We represented Panasonic in an ITC investigation involving four patents on flat panel liquid crystal displays. After successfully completing discovery, we settled the case on terms favorable to our client.
    • Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation: We represented Panasonic in an ITC investigation and E.D. Virginia action involving patents on flat panel liquid crystal displays. After a very favorable Markman ruling, we settled the case.

Insights

News