Kevin P. Anderson

I'll research this attorney's background and verify the tracked cases.

Let me verify the Centripetal v. Cisco outcomes and the Lab Technology v. Verizon cases.

Let me verify Anderson's specific role in the Centripetal v. Cisco litigation and his IPR track record.

Kevin P. Anderson — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus areas. Anderson's patent practice centers on electronics and communications technology: wireless standards (802.11/Wi-Fi, CDMA, DSL), networking and cybersecurity, semiconductor and microprocessor design (processor architecture, cache/memory and coherency, graphics pipelines), software, and messaging/ringtone technologies. Duane Morris's bio also notes work on LED technology, medical devices, and ANDA/generic-pharmaceutical litigation, plus ITC Section 337 investigations involving semiconductor and LED manufacturing. His technical background is relevant rather than incidental — he worked as a software and computer-systems designer in Silicon Valley and Research Triangle Park before law school and holds a B.S. in computer science (Arizona State, 1987).

Side preference. Within the tracked docket he is exclusively a defense-side litigator (0 plaintiff / 4 defendant appearances), and that is consistent with the public record: his representative matters describe defending a large wireless carrier, a computer-chip maker, and consumer-electronics manufacturers. He does not present as an NPE/PAE-side assertion lawyer, though he has drafted summary-judgment, trial, and appellate briefs on the patent-owner side in the NTP wireless-email campaign against BlackBerry, so his experience is not purely defensive.

Firm context and background. He has been a partner at Duane Morris in Washington, D.C. since 2019, joining from Wiley Rein LLP, where he spent roughly 17 years (2001–2019) and chaired its patent litigation practice. Before private practice he clerked for Judge William C. Bryson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2000–2001). He is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 43,471).

Notable cases and outcomes. The most prominent tracked matter is Centripetal Networks v. Cisco Systems (E.D. Va.), where he was part of Cisco's Duane Morris team at trial and on appeal. Cisco initially lost badly — an October 2020 willful-infringement judgment exceeding $2.75 billion (roughly $1.9 billion after enhancement, with running royalties). The Federal Circuit reversed in June 2022 on Cisco's recusal motion (the trial judge's wife owned Cisco stock) and vacated the judgment, remanding to a new judge. On remand the district court found no infringement of the three remaining patents (December 2023), and a Federal Circuit panel affirmed that noninfringement in April 2026 — a complete reversal of outcome attributable in part to the appeal his team briefed. In Lab Technology LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (E.D. Tex., 2024), he led the defense of Verizon against an NPE suit asserting former TP Lab patents on messaging and E911/location features; the case was dismissed by joint motion in December 2024, and a parallel case against Verizon Communications was dismissed without prejudice in August 2024.

PTAB / IPR experience. This is a substantial part of his practice. He appears repeatedly as lead or backup counsel on IPR petitions for clients including Ericsson (including the Ericsson v. IPCom proceedings), Nokia, ARM Limited, and AT&T entities. Firm materials describe him as lead counsel on numerous IPR petitions spanning multimedia messaging, ringtones, graphics processors, processor and virtual-memory architecture, cache coherency, femtocells, and encryption, and note related PTAB work in the Centripetal/Cisco and IPCom disputes.

Bar / education. Admitted in North Carolina (2000) and the District of Columbia (2002); also admitted before the Federal Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, and district courts including D.D.C., E.D. Tex., and E.D. Mich. J.D., Duke University School of Law, 2000 (highest honors, Order of the Coif); B.S. Computer Science, Arizona State University, 1987.

Note on sourcing: firm bio, Martindale, Best Lawyers, and Federal Circuit/docket filings were used. Some of the more detailed "representative matters" language (e.g., the NTP/BlackBerry briefs, specific ITC investigations) comes from his own firm and professional profiles and is not independently corroborated by a court opinion in the sources reviewed; the Centripetal/Cisco and Lab Technology outcomes above are corroborated by court opinions, dockets, and legal-press coverage.