Mark Supko

Mark Supko is a first-chair trial lawyer whose practice has been dedicated to intellectual property litigation for more than 30 years, with a heavy emphasis on patent litigation involving computer, electrical, and mechanical technologies. Leading high-tech companies trust Mark to deliver business-oriented results in their most important IP disputes.

Mark is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation, from presuit investigations through trial and appeal. He has successfully litigated patent infringement cases in federal district courts across the country, has argued appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has handled Section 337 cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission, has litigated Section 1498 cases before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and has led teams in inter partes reviews before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Mark has first-chaired cases involving a wide variety of technologies, including automated train control systems, automobile navigation systems, automotive braking systems, wireless communications, internet infrastructure and applications, consumer electronics, digital imaging, oil refining, financial services, and medical devices. These cases have ranged from defending some of the largest companies in the world from patents being asserted against entire industry segments to representation of small companies asserting their crown-jewel patents against competitors.

Mark represents clients both in enforcing their patent rights against infringers and in defending against the enforcement efforts of others, with considerable experience asserting patents in competitor cases and defending cases brought by nonpracticing  entities. He also has experience litigating other types of IP matters, including trade secret misappropriation, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement. Mark recently was lead trial counsel for the plaintiff in a case involving computer-based train control technology that resulted in a jury verdict of willful infringement and a multimillion-dollar damages award. In another recent case, he was lead appellate counsel in an inventorship dispute over blockbuster prostate cancer drugs that resulted in affirmance of the client’s trial court wins.

In addition to litigation, Mark’s practice involves counseling clients on matters relating to the acquisition, protection, and enforcement of IP rights, including preparation of legal opinions relating to patent validity, enforceability, and infringement. He also has been extensively involved in the licensing of IP, including the establishment of licensing programs through both adversarial and non-adversarial means.

Mark is co-chair of the firm’s Patent and ITC Litigation Group. Before pursuing a career in law, he was a systems engineer for the world’s largest automaker. He is also active in the firm’s pro bono program, focusing his community service efforts on defensive asylum cases before the U.S. Immigration Court. Mark has successfully represented numerous victims of persecution at the hands of foreign governments in securing political asylum in the United States.

Affiliations

Representative Matters

Representative Cases

• Representing Graco Children’s Products and its supplier, Wonderland Nurserygoods of Taiwan, in a multi-forum patent litigation against Baby Trend and three of its suppliers in China. Brought ITC action against Baby Trend’s U.S. imports of strollers and playards infringing four patents to Graco’s famous Pack ’n Play playards and Sit ‘n Stand strollers, with parallel actions in the Central District of California. ITC trial expected in September 2022. (Certain Playards & Strollers). 
  
• Represented Siemens in a wide-ranging, multi-forum intellectual property dispute involving Positive Train Control technology, including a jury trial win resulting in a finding of willful infringement and a $15 million damages award, and including defense of 15 inter partes review (IPR) petitions before the USPTO. Siemens Industry Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies, No. 1:16-cv-284 (D. Del.).
• Represented several University of California scientists in two appeals arising from an inventorship dispute over patents covering blockbuster prostate cancer treatment drugs, resulting in affirmances of judgments entered by the district court following a bench trial in one case and grant of dismissal in the other. Chen v. Jung et al., Appeal Nos. 2020-1255, -1257 (Fed. Cir.).
  
• Defended Honeywell in a patent infringement suit filed by a non-practicing entity relating to mobile computers implementing various wireless communications standards. Sisval International v. Honeywell, No. 1:19-cv-1143 (D. Del.).
• Defended BAE Systems in a trade secrets misappropriation action relating to the development of a next-generation light armored vehicle for the U.S. Army, successfully defeating claims for injunctive relief that could have threatened a $750 million development contract. Raytheon v BAE Systems, No. 1:19-cv-251 (E.D. Va.).
• Representing Cybergenetics in a patent infringement suit against its primary competitor involving computer-based probabilistic genotyping systems used for forensic analysis of evidence samples containing DNA mixtures. Cybergenetics v. Institute of Environmental Science and Research, No. 5:19-cv-1197 (N.D. Ohio).
  
• Defended Avaya in a patent infringement suit brought by a non-practicing entity against suppliers of network communication equipment compliant with the IEEE’s Power Over Ethernet standard. Network-1 Technologies v. Avaya et al., No. 6:11-cv-492 (E.D. Tex.).
• Defended General Motors and OnStar in a multi-forum patent infringement dispute involving a smartwatch-based mobile app for controlling vehicle security and diagnostics functions, applying an aggressive counter-offensive against the plaintiff and its principal that forced the plaintiff to drop its complaints in both the district court and the ITC. Intellectual Capital Consulting v. General Motors and OnStar, No. 2:15-cv-917 (E.D. Tex.).
• Represented amicus General Motors in a Federal Circuit appeal of a preliminary injunction against a supplier that threatened the supply of lithium ion batteries used in General Motors' electric vehicles, resulting in reversal of the injunction. Celgard v. LG Chem, No. 2014-1675 (Fed. Cir.).
  
• Represented plaintiffs Bendix and Knorr-Bremse in a patent infringement suit against a main competitor involving air disk brakes for commercial vehicles, securing a jury verdict of willful infringement, a permanent injunction, compensatory and enhanced damages, and a multimillion dollar attorneys' fee award. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. Haldex Brake Products, No. 1:09-CV-176 (N.D. Ohio).
• Represented respondent General Motors in a Section 337 investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking to exclude importation of vehicles equipped with in-dash navigation systems, successfully pressuring the Complainant to terminate the investigation at the close of fact discovery. Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-814 (U.S.I.T.C.).

Autonomous/Connected Vehicles

• Represented Siemens in a wide-ranging, multi-forum intellectual property dispute involving Positive Train Control technology, including a jury trial win resulting in a finding of willful infringement and a $15 million damages award, and including defense of 15 inter partes review (IPR) petitions before the USPTO. Siemens Industry Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies, No. 1:16-cv-284 (D. Del.).
• Defended General Motors and OnStar in a multi-forum patent infringement dispute involving a smartwatch-based mobile app for controlling vehicle security and diagnostics functions, applying an aggressive counter-offensive against the plaintiff and its principal that forced the plaintiff to drop its complaints in both the district court and the ITC. Intellectual Capital Consulting v. General Motors and OnStar, No. 2:15-cv-917 (E.D. Tex.).
• Defended OnStar in a patent infringement action involving vehicle-based Internet communications, forcing a voluntary dismissal of the complaint with prejudice after securing a transfer to OnStar's home forum. Automotive Technologies Int'l v. OnStar, No. 4:11-CV-15604 (E.D. Mich.).
• Defended BMW and Mercedes in a patent infringement action involving the transmission of advertisements to vehicles using GPS and Internet technologies, forcing a favorable settlement immediately after a Markman hearing. Fernandez Innovative Technologies v. BMW and Mercedes, No. 07-CV-1397 (N.D. Ill.).
• Defended OnStar in a patent infringement action involving remote control of vehicle operational systems, securing a favorable settlement after successfully compelling the deposition of the plaintiff's principal. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems v. OnStar, No. 8:10-CV-01909 (C.D. Cal.).

Automotive/Transportation

• Representing automotive parts supplier BOS in a patent infringement action involving retractable rear window shades with injection-molded guide rails. BOS GmbH v. Macauto, No. 4:17-cv-10461 (E.D. Mich.).
• Defended General Motors in a patent infringement action involving vehicle-based camera technology brought against nearly every major competitor in the U.S. automotive market, securing a dismissal with prejudice after convincing the court that the asserted patent could not reasonably be construed to cover the accused products. Ottah v. General Motors, No. 1:15-cv-2465 (S.D.N.Y.).
• Represented defendant General Motors in a patent infringement action involving personalized marketing communications brought by a non-practicing entity against a wide swath of U.S. industries, forcing the plaintiff to withdraw its complaint shortly before trial. Phoenix Licensing v. General Motors, No. 2:13-cv-1093 (E.D. Tex.).
• Represented Belgian patent owner and its U.S. subsidiary in patent infringement action against supplier of two-tone vehicle instrument panels and door panels manufactured using patented spray molding process. Recticel Automobilesysteme v. Automotive Components Holdings, No. 2:10-CV-14097 (E.D. Mich.).
• Represented Bendix and Knorr-Bremse in a patent infringement suit against a main competitor involving air disk brakes for commercial vehicles, securing a jury verdict of willful infringement, a permanent injunction, compensatory and enhanced damages, and a multi million dollar attorneys' fee award. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. Haldex Brake Products, No. 1:09-CV-176 (N.D. Ohio).
• Represented respondent General Motors in a Section 337 investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking to exclude importation of vehicles equipped with in-dash navigation systems, successfully pressuring the Complainant to terminate the investigation at the close of fact discovery. Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-814 (U.S.I.T.C.).
• Represented third-party General Motors in a patent infringement action brought against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims involving a technology for heat treatment of metal vehicle components, successfully defeating the plaintiff's effort to take intrusive third-party discovery. Hitkansut v. United States, No. 1:12-CV-303 (Fed. Cl.).

Computer/Electrical

• Representing Cybergenetics in a patent infringement suit against its primary competitor involving computer-based probabilistic genotyping systems used for forensic analysis of evidence samples containing DNA mixtures.  Cybergenetics v. Institute of Environmental Science and Research, No. 5:19-cv-1197 (N.D. Ohio).
• Represented patentee in declaratory judgment action involving patents, copyrights, and trademarks covering graphical modeling system used to develop insurance claim estimates, securing favorable settlement that resolved risk of confusion in market. Symbility v. Xactware, No. 2:05-CV-73068 (E.D. Mich.).
• Defended Kodak in two related patent infringement actions involving a process for virtual proofing of digital print jobs, securing a favorable settlement after claim construction. Colorquick v. Kodak, Nos. 6:08-CV-165, 6:06-CV-390 (E.D. Tex.).
• Represented Kodak in patent infringement action brought by non-practicing entity on patents involving process for enhancing scanned digital images, securing a favorable settlement during fact discovery. GTX v. Kodak, No. 6:06-CV-244 (E.D. Tex.).
• Represented manufacturer of optical fiber switches in defense of patent infringement suit, forcing a favorable settlement after counterclaiming for infringement of our clients' own earlier patents covering the technology at issue. Apcon v. Curtiss-Wright and Systran, No. 07-CV-402 (C.D. Cal.).
• Defended Kodak in a patent infringement action brought by a non-practicing entity on patents involving network interface cards for computer peripheral devices, resulting in a favorable settlement. Whetstone Electronics v. Kodak, No. 6:08-CV-317 (E.D. Tex.).
• Defended BAE Systems in a trade secrets misappropriation action relating to the development of a next-generation light armored vehicle for the U.S. Army, successfully defeating claims for injunctive relief that could have threatened a $750 million development contract.  Raytheon v BAE Systems, No. 1:19-cv-251 (E.D. Va.)  

Telecommunications

• Defended Avaya in a patent infringement suit brought by a non-practicing entity against suppliers of network communication equipment compliant with the IEEE’s Power Over Ethernet standard. Network-1 Technologies v. Avaya et al., No. 6:11-cv-492 (E.D. Tex.).
• Defended KVH in a patent infringement action involving maritime-based satellite communications equipment, securing a favorable settlement. Advanced Media Networks v. KVH, No. 1:15-cv-84 (D.R.I.).
• Defended Vizada in a patent infringement action involving satellite communication systems, securing a favorable settlement providing the client with freedom to operate in the market for the accused technology. Advanced Media Networks v. Vizada, No. 1:10-CV-194 (S.D.N.Y.).
• Defended Nortel Networks in a patent infringement action involving distributed telecommunications networks using spread spectrum modulation, securing a favorable settlement for a small fraction of the plaintiff's original demand. Linex v. Nortel, No. 05-CV-80300 (S.D. Fla.).

Consumer Products

• Defended Yamaha in a patent infringement action involving communication protocols for wireless networking of multimedia devices, forcing a favorable settlement by pursuing an aggressive defense strategy focused on invalidation of the asserted patents through an early "Alice motion." Open Network Solutions v. Yamaha, No. 1:14-cv-702 (D. Del.).
• Defended Yamaha in a patent infringement action brought by a non-practicing entity against suppliers of audio-visual equipment compliant with the “Miracast” standard for wireless video display. Sockeye Licensing TX v. Yamaha, No. 2:15-cv-1615 (E.D. Tex.).
• Represented complainant Invacare in a Section 337 investigation involving importation of patented adjustable hospital beds, succeeding in obtaining a consent order excluding the accused products from entry into the United States. Adjustable-Height Beds and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-734 (U.S.I.T.C.).
• Represented Yamaha in a patent infringement action involving Blu-Ray Disc Players with wireless control and display capabilities. Motile Optics v. Yamaha, No. 6:15-cv-1069 (E.D. Tex.). 

Defense/Government Contracts

• Defended BAE Systems in a trade secrets misappropriation action relating to the development of a next-generation light armored vehicle for the U.S. Army, successfully defeating claims for injunctive relief that could have threatened a $750 million development contract.  Raytheon v BAE Systems, No. 1:19-cv-251 (E.D. Va.).
• Represented third-party defendant BAE Systems in a patent infringement action filed against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498 involving laser-based missile countermeasure systems for the U.S. Army, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice after we invalidated the asserted patent through an inter partes review at the USPTO. Cheetah Omni v. United States, No. 1:11-CV-255 (Fed. Cl.).
• Represented several BAE Systems entities in a patent infringement action involving fiber optic lasers used in missile countermeasure systems, securing a voluntary dismissal before answering the complaint due to a lack of any actionable commercial activity. Cheetah Omni v. BAE Systems, No. 6:10-CV-602 (E.D. Tex.).

Chemical/Chemical Engineering

• Represented plaintiff Curtiss-Wright Flow Control in a patent infringement action against a competitor involving industrial valves used to dehead coke drums during oil refining operations, securing grant of a preliminary injunction leading to a settlement that kept the competitor's accused valve out of the market. Curtiss-Wright Flow Control v. Velan, No. 04-CV-1157 (W.D. Tex.).
• Represented specialty tobacco company Star Scientific in a decade-long legal battle against "big tobacco" seeking to enforce patents directed to an improved curing method that substantially prevents the formation of the primary carcinogen in cured tobacco, resulting in a settlement after two rounds of trials and appeals. Star Scientific v. R.J. Reynolds, No. MJG-01-CV-1504 (D. Md.).
• Defended a manufacturer of helicopter flight data recorders and its customers in a patent infringement suit involving endothermic chemical heat sinks used for fire protection, securing a favorable settlement during expert discovery. Hayes v. Penny & Giles, No. 2-04-CV-3084 (D.N.J.).

Financial Services

• Represented leading supplier of prepaid gift cards in patent infringement action involving system for processing financial transactions, securing a stipulated judgment of noninfringement following a favorable claim construction ruling. Every Penny Counts v. First Data, No. 8:07-CV-1254 (M.D. Fla.).

Medical Devices/Healthcare

• Represented leading supplier of dental veneers in patent infringement suit involving process for manufacturing porcelain dental restorations, securing summary judgment of noninfringement. PSN Illinois v. Den-Mat, No. 04-CV-7232 (N.D. Ill.).

Appellate Cases

• Represented several University of California scientists in two appeals arising from an inventorship dispute over patents covering blockbuster prostate cancer treatment drugs, resulting in affirmances of judgments entered by the district court following a bench trial in one case and grant of dismissal in the other. Chen v. Jung et al., Appeal Nos. 2020-1255, -1257 (Fed. Cir.).
  
• Represented amicus General Motors in a Federal Circuit appeal of a preliminary injunction against a supplier that threatened the supply of lithium ion batteries used in General Motors' electric vehicles, resulting in reversal of the injunction. Celgard v. LG Chem, No. 2014-1675 (Fed. Cir.).
• Represented specialty tobacco company Star Scientific in an appeal involving patents directed to an improved tobacco curing method. Following a six-week jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. The Federal Circuit reversed on each of four different grounds of invalidity, and the case subsequently settled favorably. Star Scientific v. R.J. Reynolds, No. 2010-1183 (Fed. Cir.).
• Represented leading supplier of prepaid gift cards in patent infringement appeal involving system for processing financial transactions after securing stipulated judgment of noninfringement below. Judgment of noninfringement was affirmed. Every Penny Counts v. First Data, Nos. 2008-1434,-1438 (Fed. Cir.).
• Represented Star Scientific in an appeal involving patents directed to an improved tobacco curing method. Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, finding the patents-in-suit unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit reversed, entering judgment in Star Scientific's favor on inequitable conduct and remanding for a full trial on the merits. Star Scientific v. R.J. Reynolds, No. 2007-1448 (Fed. Cir.).
• Represented supplier of dental veneers in patent infringement appeal involving process for manufacturing porcelain dental restorations after winning on summary judgment below. Summary judgment of noninfringement was affirmed. PSN Illinois v. Den-Mat, No. 2007-1512 (Fed. Cir.).

Insights