Douglas A. Robinson
Principal / St. Louis Metro Office
Doug’s practice is focused on intellectual property contested matters in the areas of patents, trade secrets and trademarks. His experience includes all aspects of federal IP litigation, in numerous district courts and across the country.
A precise advocate and experienced negotiator, Doug’s expertise spans every phase of the dispute resolution process, from pre-suit investigation through appeal. A large portion of Doug’s practice is devoted to Inter Partes Review and other proceedings before the USPTO, where he is admitted as a Patent Attorney. He has also served as litigation counsel in numerous cases under the Hatch-Waxman Act and on behalf of various generic pharmaceutical companies. In addition, Doug counsels his clients on legal opinions, including freedom-to-practice, validity and infringement opinions.
- Thermapure, Inc. v. RxHeat™, LLC and Cambridge Engineering, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) Ongoing representation of RxHeat and Cambridge Engineering in defense of patent infringement allegations regarding Thermapure’s patent regarding heat-based pest remediation devices and methods; obtained favorable summary judgment ruling of non-infringement and successful Daubert challenge of patentee’s expect. Cite: 35 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Ill.)
- Sunless, Inc. v. Heartland Tanning, Inc. (W.D. Mo. and PTAB) Defended Heartland Tanning against patent infringement lawsuit brought by Sunless concerning spray tanning booths. The case ended with a favorable settlement following institution of Inter Partes Review on petition filed for Heartland Tanning and successful motion to transfer venue from the Eastern District of Texas to Heartland Tanning’s home forum.
- Interactive Fitness Holdings, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (D. Utah) Representation of Interactive Fitness in defense against ICON’s assertion of patent infringement; obtained favorable summary judgment rulings of patent non-infringement and patent invalidity. Cite: 2013 WL 687126.
- Derm v. Bomtech Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D.N.Y. and PTAB) Lead counsel representation of Bomtech in patent infringement litigation concerning tattoo and permanent make-up devices. The case ended with a favorable settlement following institution of an Inter Partes Review proceeding filed for Bomtech.
- Derm v. CONNECT, Inc. (D. Nevada) Lead counsel representation of CONNECT in patent infringement litigation concerning tattoo and permanent make-up devices. The case ended with a favorable settlement following claim construction briefing.
- Hansen Manufacturing Corp. v. Enduro Systems, Inc. (D. South Dakota) Representation of Hansen regarding Enduro’s accused infringement of Hansen’s patent covering an enclosed conveyor belt system. Representation of Hansen also includes successful defense of ex parte patent reexamination proceeding instituted by Enduro.
- Microwave Vision, S.A., et al. v. ETS-Lindgren Inc. & ESCO Techs. Inc. (N.D. Ga) Representation of ETS-Lindgren and ESCO in patent infringement litigation concerning antenna-testing technology; obtained favorable summary judgment ruling of non-infringement.
- Laird Techs., Inc. v. GrafTech Int’l Holdings Inc. (PTAB) Representation of petitioner Laird in multiple Inter Partes Review proceedings concerning heat dissipation technology. All challenged claims were found unpatentable by the PTAB, and those rulings were affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
- Clearlamp, LLC v. LKQ Corp. (N.D. III.) Representation of Clearlamp regarding LKQ’s accused infringement of Clearlamp’s patented vehicle light refurbishing process. Also included successful defense of patent-in-issue in an Inter Partes Review proceeding instituted by LKQ.
- Gibson Guitar Corp. v. ‘745, LLC. (M.D. TN) Defended ‘745 against patent infringement lawsuit brought by Gibson Guitar Corp. regarding a virtual music reality system. After a two-day Markman hearing, ‘745 secured a claim construction ruling construing four terms in ‘745’s favor. Gibson filed a dismissal with prejudice following the ruling. Cite: 2012 WL 90445
- Propex Operating Company, LLC v. Western Excelsior Corporation (E.D. TN) Propex sued Western Excelsior for patent infringement for trade dress infringement based on Western Excelsior’s soil erosion fabrics. Propex also sought a preliminary injunction. Harness Dickey successfully represented Western Excelsior, defeating the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Following the Markman hearing, Western Excelsior prevailed on all three claim terms in dispute. Propex dismissed its lawsuit with prejudice. Cite: 2011 WL 310195
- Snap On v. Hunter Engineering: Under an arbitration agreement, Snap On initiated arbitration claims against Hunter for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,953,247. Harness Dickey assisted Hunter in developing defenses to the allegations. Following a daylong meeting between the parties, Snap On withdrew its allegations, with preclusive effect of asserting the patent against Hunter in the future.
- Hunter Engineering v. Snap-On: Representation of Hunter in patent arbitration regarding Hunter’s revolutionary balancer technology. Following a weeklong trial, the arbitrator awarded Hunter seven figure compensation based on an above industry average 7% royalty rate, and further ordered Snap-On to pay attorneys’ fees and all arbitration costs.
- Discus Dental, LLC v. Triumph Pharmaceuticals Inc. (C.D. CA): Representation of Triumph. Obtained partial grant of summary judgment in a false advertising case regarding claims that its mouthwash prevented bad breath 12 times longer than any other mouthwash. The favorable ruling gave Triumph a significant advantage in the litigation, resulting in a favorable settlement shortly after the ruling.
In the News
- Doug Robinson Quoted in Bloomberg Law on VirtnetX Federal Circuit Decision Involving Reexams
- Doug Robinson Interviewed by Bloomberg Law about New PTAB Evidence Precedent
- Doug Robinson Comments on Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew in Bloomberg Law Article
- Doug Robinson Discusses PTAB Trends for Medical Device Makers with Medical Design Briefs
- PTAB Litigator Doug Robinson is Quoted in Bloomberg Law over Precedential Time-Bar Decision
- Patent Litigator Doug Robinson Comments on Swiss University’s Failure to Revive Canine Gene Patent Claims
- PTAB Litigator Doug Robinson Discusses Patent Appeals Standing with Law360
- Doug Robinson Interviewed by Bloomberg Law on Apriso Obviousness Ruling
- Patent Litigator Doug Robinson Quoted in Law360 On Redundancy and Estoppel at the PTAB
- Doug Robinson Talks to Bloomberg Law about Google's Failed Motion to Transfer Patent Suit Venues
- Doug Robinson Comments on PTAB Forum Clause in Law360 Article
- Doug Robinson Interviewed by Law360 on Recent Precedential Decisions from the PTAB
- Doug Robinson Quoted in Law360 on Slowing PTAB Trend
- Robinson Quote Is Featured in Law360 Article About Unusual Patent Cases
- Patent Litigator Doug Robinson Discusses Blocking Patents with Law360
- Doug Robinson Sheds Additional Light on Parties-in-Interest at the PTAB in Law360 Article
- Doug Robinson Parses Out Drug Patent Invalidation Rates with Law360
- Doug Robinson Discusses Importance of Real Parties-in-Interest with Law360
- Harness Dickey Patent Litigator Doug Robinson Talks Patent "Shootouts" with Law360
- "Fed. Circ. Highlights Peril Of Using ‘Common Sense’ At PTAB," Law360, August 15, 2016
- Harness Dickey Elects Six New Principals, January 8, 2013
- St. Louis Attorney to Host an Online Session on the Fundamentals of Intellectual Property Rights
- Doug Robinson to Co-lead “IPR Update” CLE
- Doug Robinson to Lead CLE Presentation on New Issues in Inter Partes Reviews
Doug is regularly asked to comment on pending Hatch-Waxman litigation for industry publications. Articles in which Doug has been quoted include the following:
- Otuska/BMS’s Abilify: Strong inequitable conduct challenge presented by generics at trial faces uphill battle
- Somaxon’s patents for newly launched insomnia drug Silenor seen as unlikely to survive potential generic ANDA challenge
- Shire’s Patents for ADD drug Intuniv may be vulnerable to generic design-around in ongoing ANDA litigations
- Roche/Genentech seen as likely to prevail in proving that Herceptin does not infringe GSK’s patents in ongoing litigation
- Patent Litigator Doug Robinson Discusses the Enbrel Decision in an Article for Biosimilar Development
- Doug Robinson Authors Article on Amgen v. Sandoz for Biosimilar Development
- Doug Robinson Authors Article on Secondary Considerations & Pharmaceutical Patents for IAM Magazine
- Harness Dickey Attorneys Pen New Article about the Impact of USPTO Guidance Revisions on Biosimilars
- Doug Robinson Shares 10 Reasons to Patent Your Start-up’s Invention
- Doug Robinson Publishes Article on Patent Eligibility Laws & How They Affect the Pharma Industry
- Patent Litigator Doug Robinson Discusses Pharma Distribution After Lexmark Case
- "Deposition In Inter Partes Review Is A Different Animal," Law360, December 15, 2014
- At Risk Launch: A Hypothetical Case Study
- District Court Orders Petitioner to Seek Termination of IPR based on Forum Selection Clause
- The Ever-Shrinking IPR Estoppel
- Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB for Refusing to Allow Supplementation of Record to Add Later Inconsistent Deposition Testimony from an Expert
- News Alert: Precedential Patent and Trademark Order by the Federal Circuit
- Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of AIA Reviews
- Supreme Court Affirms Strength of First Sale Doctrine
- Supreme Court to Hear Another IPR Case — SAS Institute v. Lee
- Patentee’s Teaching Away Argument Fails to Overcome Substantial Evidence of Unpatentability
- Federal Circuit Broadly Affirms PTAB’s Determinations on Analogous Art, Motivation to Combine References and Obviousness of Claims
- Federal Circuit Rejects Patentee’s Effort to Narrow Claim Scope
- Federal Circuit Demonstrates Willingness to Rein in PTAB’s Onerous Idle Free Rules Regarding Claim Amendments
- “Substantial Evidence” Hurdle is Substantially Difficult to Overcome
- PTAB Reversed–Common Sense Improperly Used to Supply Missing Limitation in Obviousness Inquiry
- PTAB Grants IPR Motion to Exclude – Knocks Out Exhibits As Untimely
- Board Explains the Process for Evidentiary Objections—and Illustrates the Severe Penalty for Not Following It
Doug is dedicated to understanding his client’s broader objectives. Doug’s clients appreciate that he knows the law, inside and out, and as a result, is able to deliver immediate and understandable answers. His attention to detail and responsiveness is the result of more than a decade of practical experience. He consistently maintains perspective on how the law fits into the larger commercial strategy.
Doug’s technological experience is broad, and includes pharmaceuticals, chemicals, biologics, satellite communications equipment, exercise equipment, medical devices, pest and mold remediation technology, automated meter reading systems, injection molding machines, vehicle parts refurbishing, spray tanning booths, heatsinks for electronics, and antenna testing equipment.
When Doug is not in the office, he spends much of his time coaching or cheering for his children’s sports teams. He also enjoys hiking, fishing, and participating in other outdoor activities with his family.
Prior to joining Harness Dickey, Doug worked in the Chicago office of a large IP firm.
Awards & Distinctions
- Best Lawyers, Litigation – Patent, 2017-2021
- Best Lawyers, Litigation – Intellectual Property, 2019-2021
- Missouri Lawyers Weekly, “Up and Coming Lawyer,” 2013
- Kansas Super Lawyers “Rising Star,” 2013
- Missouri Super Lawyers “Rising Star,” 2013-2014
- Order of the Coif, Washington University School of Law, awarded to Top 10% of graduating class
- Washington University Law Quarterly (now Washington University Law Review), Executive Articles Editor
- Mary Collier Hitchcock Prize for best Note in Washington University Law Quarterly, 2004
- Awards for Excellence in Intellectual Property Law, Insurance and American Legal History
J.D., Washington University in St. Louis, 2004
- Order of the Coif, Top 7%
B.S., Biochemistry and Chemistry minor, cum laude, University of Missouri, 2000
Bar & Court Admissions
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office