Kevin Lee Burgess

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Good detail so far. Let me check PTAB/IPR activity and a few key case outcomes.

Let me verify a few remaining threads: PTAB appearances, the NetList matter, and the one tracked E.D. Tex. case.

Kevin Lee Burgess — patent litigation practice summary

Focus and technology areas. Mr. Burgess is a first-chair patent trial lawyer in McKool Smith's Marshall, Texas office whose practice centers on complex electronics and software disputes. His representative matters cluster in wireless and RF technology — LTE, WCDMA/GSM, 802.11 Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, CDMA2000, wireless charging, and RF transceiver/down-conversion circuits — along with semiconductor memory (high-performance DRAM modules), software (document architecture/XML, graphical programming, computer graphics), and some medical-device work (balloon angioplasty catheters). He holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in electrical engineering, which the firm cites as central to his handling of technically intricate cases.

Side preference. His practice is predominantly plaintiff-side, representing patentees and licensing entities such as Mojo Mobility, Netlist, ParkerVision, PanOptis, Wi-LAN, Odyssey Wireless, Eolas, and National Instruments. The tracked appearance data is consistent with that lean (1 plaintiff-side appearance, 0 defendant-side, recorded as counsel at McKool Smith), though it is a single entry and materially understates his docket. He does have operating-company defense experience, most notably defending Ericsson in district court and ITC proceedings. Chambers USA has described him as having "excelled in defense and plaintiff infringement actions."

Firm context. He is a Principal at McKool Smith (Marshall, with earlier Austin ties). This is his second stint at the firm: he began his private practice career there, left in April 2020 for Caldwell Cassady & Curry to pursue more contingency-fee work, and rejoined McKool Smith in January 2023. Before his first McKool Smith tenure he was an associate at Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, and he clerked for Judge William C. Bryson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1998–1999).

Notable results. Verified highlights include: i4i v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex.) — trial team member on the $200M willful-infringement verdict, later enhanced to roughly $290M with a permanent injunction and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2011 on the clear-and-convincing standard; Netlist v. Samsung (E.D. Tex., No. 2:21-cv-463) — $303.15M willful-infringement verdict in April 2023, with a further $118M verdict in November 2024, as co-counsel with Irell & Manella; Mojo Mobility v. Samsung — $192M willful-infringement verdict on five wireless-charging patents in September 2024; ParkerVision v. Qualcomm — Federal Circuit precedential decision (Sept. 6, 2024) vacating summary judgment of non-infringement and reversing exclusion of expert testimony; and PanOptis v. Huawei, where he was lead counsel and the jury found the patents valid and infringed with enhanced damages. He also represented Ericsson against Apple and Samsung in ITC and district court disputes that settled in 2015 and 2014, and the State of Texas in its biometric-privacy action against Meta, which settled for $1.4 billion in 2024.

PTAB/IPR, bar, and education. I found no reliable evidence that he appears regularly as counsel in PTAB proceedings; the ParkerVision appeals involve IPRs filed by opposing parties, not identified as his own PTAB work. He is registered to practice before the USPTO (Texas bar, 1998; Federal Circuit, 1999). He earned his J.D., summa cum laude, from Ohio State's Moritz College of Law (1998, Order of the Coif) and his Ph.D. (1995), M.S.E.E. (1992), and B.S.E.E. (1990) from Ohio State.

Caveat: the tracked-appearance list supplied contains only one entry. That single recorded appearance is in a non-patent E.D. Tex. matter (A.F. v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01014), so the counts above should be read as a data artifact rather than a measure of his patent docket.