Kenneth R. Adamo

I'll research Kenneth R. Adamo's professional background before drafting the summary.

Let me gather more detail on notable outcomes and his Federal Circuit work.

Let me verify a few notable case outcomes and his ITC work.

Kenneth R. Adamo — patent litigation practice summary

Specialty / focus. Adamo is a first-chair patent trial lawyer whose tracked matters cluster around computer network security and data encryption, financial-services/business-method patents, and electronics/software. The Intellectual Ventures banking litigation turned on patents covering firewalls, access-control and digital-property distribution, and cryptographic co-processors (the "crypto-card" suits), and the PTAB petitions he handled concerned similar subject matter. His wider practice, per firm profiles and directory entries, spans patent, trade secret, copyright and related antitrust matters across the "IP spectrum," plus ITC Section 337 work; his B.S. in chemical engineering (RPI, 1972) and early trial work (e.g., Air Products v. Tanner, Exxon Chemical v. Lubrizol) reflect a chemical/mechanical capability as well. He has appeared in more than 45–50 Federal Circuit appeals, most of which he argued.

Side preference. He is predominantly a defense-side litigator for operating companies accused of infringement. Of the 14 tracked appearances, 9 are defendant-side, and those are largely major financial institutions (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, U.S. Bancorp, Compass Bank) defending NPE/PAE assertions by Intellectual Ventures. The 5 plaintiff-side entries are declaratory-judgment and affirmative actions brought by IBM against Intellectual Ventures — i.e., still for an operating company, not for a patent assertion entity. Nothing in the record indicates he prosecutes or represents NPEs; his practice is best characterized as defense of technology and financial-services companies, with some offensive/declaratory work for large patent holders.

Firm context and notable matters. All 14 tracked appearances list Kirkland & Ellis, where he was a partner in the IP group in the Chicago and New York offices; per an IAM interview he spent roughly 37 years as a partner at Jones Day and Kirkland, and in 2019 established the Law Office of KRAdamo, a Chicago boutique focused on IP trials, post-grant proceedings and ADR. Most prominent tracked matters: the Intellectual Ventures II v. JPMorgan Chase litigation (S.D.N.Y., Judge Hellerstein), where his client obtained partial summary judgment of patent ineligibility under § 101 on three of five asserted patents in April 2015, and the related interlocutory appeal in which the Federal Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction under AIA § 18(b)(2) absent PTAB institution (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) — a dismissal on JPMC's own stay appeal); the court later affirmed in a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment (Dec. 2018). He also represented IBM in IV II declaratory actions. Profile sources also cite Rambus v. IBM / IBM v. Rambus § 146 priority proceedings (favorable to IBM), a defense of Procter & Gamble in Akbar v. P&G (false-marking dismissal, 2010), and lead trial work in Maxell v. Huawei.

PTAB / IPR and credentials. He has substantial PTO practice, including ex parte and post-grant proceedings; he signed petitioner powers of attorney and served as lead or back-up counsel in several IBM IPRs and CBMs against Intellectual Ventures, including IPR2014-00682, IPR2015-01322, IPR2015-01323 and CBM2014-00157. He is registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 27,299) and is admitted in Illinois (1975), New York (1976), Ohio (1984) and Texas (1988); education: RPI (B.S.Ch.E. 1972), Albany Law School (J.D. 1975) and John Marshall Law School (LL.M. 1989). Directories (Chambers, IAM Patent 1000, IP STARS) have ranked him Band 1/Gold in Illinois IP for many years.

Note on sourcing: the case list reflects his Kirkland tenure and does not include post-2019 matters from his own firm; current-firm and biographical details come from IAM, ICLG/IP STARS, and directory profiles, which are self-reported and should be treated accordingly.