Kerry L. Konrad

PROFILE

Kerry L. Konrad is a Partner in the Firm's Litigation Department. Mr. Konrad's practice is focused on intellectual property law and other legal issues pertinent to technology-based companies, including securities litigation. He founded and currently serves as co-head of the Firm's East Coast transactional practice relating to intellectual property, which includes e-commerce, technology transfers and licensing. He has represented clients in a variety of industries, including computer software, integrated circuit design and fabrication, network devices, financial information services, and consumer products and packaging.

Along with Hank Gutman of the Firm, Mr. Konrad represented Lotus Development Corp. in the long running Lotus v. Paperbackand Lotus v. Borland litigation, which ultimately reached the Supreme Court and helped to define the scope of copyright protection for computer software. With Bob Bourque of the Firm, he represented the defendant in Bensusan v. King (the "Blue Note" case), one of the first cases to address the issue of personal jurisdiction for Internet-related business activities. Recently, he obtained a jury verdict with Mr. Gutman for client 3Com Corp. in a patent infringement trial in San Francisco awarding $45.3 million in compensatory damages and finding willful infringement, leading to a payment of $70 million to 3Com.

In addition to copyright and patent litigation, he has first-chaired significant trademark and trademark-licensing litigation for clients including Weight Watchers, Wella A.G. and the Apollo Theater Foundation, and has prosecuted and defended claims of trade secret misappropriation for clients that have included Lotus/IBM, Owens-Illinois and UMC Group of Taiwan.

Recent major transactions in which Mr. Konrad was responsible for intellectual property issues include the acquisition of Telephia by The Nielsen Company; the acquisition of Thomson Learning (renamed Cengage) by Apax Partners; the subsequent acquisition of Houghton-Mifflin’s higher education business by Cengage; and the restructuring of the joint venture relationships between Caterpillar Inc. and client Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan. He is particularly knowledgeable in resolving issues relating to concurrent use of trademarks by separated companies in a multinational context.

Practice Focus

Honors/Associations

American Bar Association
New York State Bar Association
Federal Bar Council

Admissions

New York 1983

Education

Columbia Law School, 1982 J.D.
Harvard University, 1979 A.B.

See Library Tab for articles, publications and presentations by Kerry Konrad

LIBRARY

Publications

•	The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
•	In re Seagate: A New Standard for Willful Patent Infringement
•	eBay: The Final Word?
•	The Changing Landscape of Patent Remedies after eBay
•	The Madrid Protocol Takes Effect: Practical Considerations for U.S. Trademark Owners
•	Recent Developments in Internet-Related Copyright Issues
•	Has The Federal Circuit Finally Sunk Submarine Patents? The Doctrine Of “Prosecution Laches” Rises Again and May Render The Lemelson Patents Unenforceable - Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, L.P.
•	Domain Names - New Legislation
•	Perlman v. Catapult Entertainment, Inc. (In Re Catapult Entertainment, Inc.): Ninth Circuit Restricts Debtor’s Right To Assume Patent Licenses

Q&A

LOCATION

EDITORIAL REVIEW

Blazed trails in IP litigation for Lotus Development Corp., Dun & Bradstreet and Universal Music.

Contact Lawdragon about the information in this review.

EVALUATION

Fill in the requested information below, then submit your evaluation to have your scores calculated as part of Kerry L. Konrad Lawdragon ranking.

By submitting this form, you agree to Lawdragon's TERM OF USE.

About You First Name:

Last Name:

Title:

Company:

City:

State:

Email:

Relationship How do you know the person you are reviewing?:

If you answered other, please explain:

Type of legal matter involved (provide case name if appropriate)::

Ratings

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being excellent, please rate the attorney or judge:

EXPERTISE: Did he or she demonstrate a high level of knowledge about the legal matter?

SERVICE: Did this lawyer or judge provide good service? Was the lawyer or judge respectful and professional in his or her dealings with others?

QUALITY: Is this the type of individual you are proud to have among the bar?

OVERALL: How would you rate this attorney or judge overall from 1 to 10?

Your Review Please provide any information you have about the rates charged by this lawyer or judge. If you are reviewing a public judge, please mark n/a.

Please describe your overall experience with this attorney or judge in the space below: (1000 characters or less)

Would you recommend this lawyer or judge to a friend?: Yes No

New York Time