Edward K. Runyan (Partner)

U.S. Patent Attorney

Edward is a registered patent attorney with over sixteen years of experience providing general counseling for patents and technology, drafting and prosecuting U.S. and international patent applications, and infringement litigation in U.S. Federal Courts and the ITC.  Edward also has experience advising on the IP aspects of mergers and acquisitions such as portfolio analysis and IP due diligence. In addition to his extensive legal experience, Edward was also previously employed as a Master Systems Electrical Engineer at United Technologies Aerospace Systems in Rockford, IL where he was responsible for the design, development and support of electrical power generating systems for commercial and military aircraft.

Practice Areas
Patent Litigation
Inter Partes Review
Patent Drafting and Prosecution (U.S. and International)
Patentability Analysis and Opinions
IP Portfolio Analysis

Prior Law Firm Experience
Baker & McKenzie LLP (IP Partner 2006-2017)
Kirkland & Ellis (IP Associate 2003-2006)
McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff (IP Associate 2000-2003)

Purdue University, B.S.  (1982)
DePaul University School of Law, J.D. (2000)

IEEE member

Bar Admissions
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado (2013)
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (2009)
U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska (2007)
U.S. District Court, District of Illinois (2000)
Illinois State Bar (2000)
Trial Bar for the Northern District of Illinois (DATE)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (1997 – Reg. No. 43,067)

“Supreme Court Rules Greater Precision and Clarity Required of Patent Claims” June 5, 2014
“Attorneys’ Fees in Patent Cases” May 6,2014

Representative Legal Matters
Fellowes v. New United Office Equipment (Illinois);
RecogniCorp. v. Nintendo (Washington);
New Medium Tech. v. Barco, N.V. (N.D. Il., 2009) (bench trial win on inequitable conduct, followed by favorable settlement) (semiconductor and video technology case);
Olympic Developments v. Nintendo (N.D. Cal., 2011) (highly favorable settlement after multiple pre-trial victories);
Creative Integrated Systems, Inc. v. Nintendo et al. (C.D. Cal.) (Case settled before verdict in jury trial) (semiconductor memory case);
Barco N.V. v. Patriot Scientific et al. (N.D. Cal.) (semiconductor case, declaratory judgment. Employed unique strategy resulting in mutual agreement with the defendant patent owner to dismiss the case outright);
Agere Systems v. Broadcom Corp. (E.D. P. 2003) (semiconductor and audio coding case);
Siliconix Inc., v. Denso Corp. (N.D. Cal., 2006) (semiconductor case);
NCR Corp. v. Palm Inc. (Delaware);
Pergo v. Alloc (Wisconsin, 2007) (2-week jury trial, resulting in a complete defense victory for client Alloc);
Barco N.V. v. Aydin Displays, Inc. (N.D. Ga., 2009) (Favorable settlement for client, Barco) (video technology case);
Minkus Electronic v. Barco (Delaware);
Cellport Systems v. Pantech Wireless (Colorado);
Nilssen et al. v. Osram Sylvania, Inc. (Illinois, 2003) (compact fluorescent lighting);
Grohe America v. CEG Holdings (Illinois);
Neil Schultz v. iGPS (Illinois);
Helferich Patent Licensing v. Palm Inc. (Illinois);
ADC Technology v. Palm Inc. (Illinois);
Joao Bock Trans. Systems v. American Chartered Bank (Illinois);
Union Pacific Railroad v. Herzog Contracting (Nebraska);
Ericsson Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Texas, 2007) (standards-based cellular communications case).

Matters Before the ITC
Samsung v. Ericsson, Certain Wireless Communication Equipment, And Products Containing Same Investigation No. 337-TA-577 (2008) (standards-based cellular communications case);
Fellowes v. New United Office Equipment (trade secrets and design patent case)

Representative Technologies
Semiconductor and telecommunications technologies involving wired and wireless communications, optical communications technology, imaging technology, aircraft navigation and control, microelectromechanical systems

If you would like to speak with Edward, you can call him at 701-281-8822.