Kevin A. Zeck

Counsel

Seattle

Print bio

206.359.3002 direct

KZeck@perkinscoie.com

Notice

Before proceeding, please note: If you are not a current client of Perkins Coie, please do not include any information in this e-mail that you or someone else considers to be of a confidential or secret nature. Perkins Coie has no duty to keep confidential any of the information you provide. Neither the transmission nor receipt of your information is considered a request for legal advice, securing or retaining a lawyer. An attorney-client relationship with Perkins Coie or any lawyer at Perkins Coie is not established until and unless Perkins Coie agrees to such a relationship as memorialized in a separate writing.

vCard

Kevin is a versatile, experienced counsel focused on achieving client goals, including vindication of rights through litigation.

Kevin Zeck has represented sophisticated clients in high-stakes patent, trade secret, and trademark litigation, as well as intellectual property licensing negotiations and transactions. Kevin has deep experience in standard essential patent issues, and his litigated matters have covered a wide range of technologies, such as mechanical technologies, cellular communications, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, opto-electronics, video game systems, and pharmaceuticals (e.g., cancer drugs).

Kevin has managed all major aspects of complex patent litigation, prepared summary judgment motions, taken and defended depositions of fact and expert witnesses, prepared claim construction briefing, argued at Markman hearings, and cross-examined witnesses at trial. He has also worked with experts to prepare noninfringement, invalidity, and damages reports and has managed large-scale document and e-discovery efforts, including those related to General Data Protection Regulation issues.

Kevin has litigated before numerous federal forums, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Texas, the District of Delaware, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Western District of Washington; the U.S. International Trade Commission; and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Kevin's representative accomplishments include assisting a pharmaceutical company in obtaining an award of more than $100 million in a complex trade-secret arbitration and assisting a national retailer in obtaining a case-ending judgment on the pleadings of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on a discount processing patent.

Prior to joining Perkins Coie, Kevin spent 13 months with the King County Prosecutor's Office. During his time there, he was lead prosecutor in more than 10 trials and argued numerous motions.

Kevin has also been involved in several significant pro bono efforts, including the resolution of a protracted domestic violence divorce litigation.

Areas of focus

Services

Patent Litigation

Litigation

Intellectual Property Law

Trade Secrets

Education & Credentials

Education

Gonzaga University School of Law, J.D., summa cum laude, Business Editor, Gonzaga Law Review
Creighton University, B.S., Business Administration & Finance, magna cum laude

Bar and Court Admissions

Washington

State Supreme Court of Washington
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Related Employment

King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Seattle, WA, Deputy Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 2009-2010
Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III, Spokane, WA, Clerk, 2009; Extern for the The Honorable Kevin Korsmo, 2008

Professional Recognition

Listed as a "Rising Star" by Super Lawyers Magazine, 2015-2021

Impact

Professional Leadership

Washington State Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section

Chair, 2017-2018
Executive Committee Member, 2013-2018
Seattle Intellectual Property American Inn of Court

President, 2022-2023
Board Member, 2015-2024

Professional Experience

Patent Litigation and Appeals

Computer and Electronics Related Technologies:

Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo of America Inc.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Prepared successful petition for inter partes review (IPR), which resulted in invalidation of all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,126,119. Worked with expert in submitting declaration in support of IPR petition.

Syncpoint Imaging, Llc v. Nintendo of America Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Defended Nintendo in patent litigation involving optical-based computer control system. Took depositions, managed discovery, and assisted in preparing motion for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Crest Audio, Inc. v. Qsc, Llc.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Defended QSC in patent litigation involving audio processing and amplification technologies. Assisted in preparing claim construction briefs, assisted in arguing claim construction positions at Markman hearing, and managed discovery. Case resolved through settlement.

Shure, Inc. v. Clearone Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Represented QSC, LLC, a leading manufacturer of audio processing equipment, against patent infringement claims from ClearOne. Obtained dismissal from case due to improper venue.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Getty Images (U.S.), Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Defended Getty Images and iStockphoto L.P. in patent litigation involving media rights distribution technology. Assisted in preparing a petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review on the asserted patent, which was instituted by the Patent Office. Case resolved through settlement.

Motivation Innovations, LLC v. PetSmart, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Defended PetSmart, Inc. in patent litigation involving e-commerce patent (coupon distribution and redemption). Prepared successful motion for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Intercarrier Communications, LLC v. Glympse, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Represented Glympse in patent litigation involving cell-phone messaging technology. Assisted in filing motion to transfer venue for convenience. The court ordered a transfer to the W.D. Wash. The case ended with stipulation of dismissal shortly after transfer.

CodePro Innovations, LLC v. Redbox, Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Represented Redbox, Inc. in patent litigation involving redemption of promotion codes. Assisted in preparing a letter brief requesting permission to file motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the patents-in-suit for failure to claim patentable subject matter. The case against Redbox ended in stipulation of dismissal.

ParkerVision Inc. v. MediaTek Inc.

Represented MediaTek in an ongoing series of litigations brought by ParkerVision related to RF downconversion and upconversion subject matter. Prepared invalidity positions and claim construction briefing, argued Markman hearings, and deposed central fact witnesses, among other things.

Mechanical Technology:

Gold Medal Products Co. V. C. Cretors & Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented C. Cretors & Co. in Gold Medal Products’ appeal of an inter partes reexamination decision that invalidated claims of patent challenged by Cretors. The Federal Circuit affirmed reexamination decision.

Nystrom V. Green Diamond Resources, Inc., Et Al.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Represented Green Diamond Resource Co. and California Redwood Co. in patent litigation involving flooring technology and assisted in filing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The case was dismissed after the court ordered production of proof regarding the plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations.

Mytee Products, Inc. v. Studebaker Enterprises, Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Assisted in the representation of Studebaker Enterprises, Inc. and Skagit Northwest Holdings, Inc. in a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement filed by Mytee Products, and obtained dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under declaratory judgment act.

Thermapure, Inc. v. Dri-Eaz Products, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Represented Dri-Eaz Products, Inc. in litigation involving building restoration and remediation technologies. Assisted in the preparation of claim construction briefing and a technology tutorial. The case ended with claims against Dri-Eaz dismissed pursuant to Consent Judgment of Non-infringement.

Material Sciences:

In re: matter of certain polycrystalline diamond compacts and articles containing the same

U.S. International Trade Commission
Represented Element 6 against infringement allegations concerning patents directed to improved methods of synthesizing ultra-hard diamond compacts. Managed discovery, including issues relating to the EU’s Global Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR). Case ended with settlement.

SEP / FRAND Litigation & Counseling

HTC Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Represented HTC in FRAND declaratory judgment action. Managed pre-trial discovery and took depositions of fact and expert witnesses. Engaged in summary judgment proceedings. Oversaw trial logistics.

Nokia Corp. v. Amazon.com

Represented Amazon before the U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n as part of global RAND licensing litigation between Nokia and Amazon. Took leading role in developing RAND defenses before the ITC, worked with experts to prepare RAND related expert opinions, took and defended depositions, and cross-examined Nokia’s lead fact witness at trial.

Other Experience

Counseled electronics companies on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) and reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) licensing issues, including as to cellular standards (2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G), Wi-Fi, and video codec standards (advanced video coding (AVC) and high efficiency video coding (HEVC)).

Trade Secret Litigation

Pharmaceutical:

Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals

JAMS Arbitration
Represented Anacor in an arbitration involving trade secret and breach of contract claims concerning development of a pharmaceutical. Anacor won an award of $100 million plus fees and costs.

Computer and Electronics Related Technology:

Triquint Semiconductor Inc. v. Avago Technologies, Ltd., et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Represented TriQuint Semiconductor, a manufacturer of high-performance RF solutions used in wireless communications, in a patent, antitrust and trade secret case involving Bulk Acoustic Wave technology.

Insights

More insights

Article

December 20, 2023