Ted G. Stevenson

I'll verify this attorney's background before drafting.

Let me verify a few more specifics.

Ted G. Stevenson (Theodore Stevenson III) — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Coverage caveat. The tracked docket for this attorney in our database is essentially empty: a single appearance, recorded as counsel on the defense side for Alston & Bird, with no case name or court. That count should not be read as a real measure of his practice. Public records (his firm bio, Chambers, and Law360's attorney docket tracker, which lists over 130 matters) indicate a large, long-running first-chair patent litigation practice. The 0-plaintiff / 1-defendant split in our data is best treated as an artifact of incomplete coverage rather than a reliable side preference.

Specialty and technology focus. His practice centers on patent infringement, patent-licensing/competition overlap, and trade secret litigation. The dominant technology area is wireless telecommunications and standards: standard-essential patents (SEPs), 802.11 Wi-Fi, 2G/3G/4G cellular, LTE/WCDMA/GSM, and H.264 video coding, along with FRAND/RAND royalty disputes and antitrust counterclaims. Beyond telecom, reported matters include medical devices (balloon angioplasty catheters, coronary stents), telecommunications integrated circuits and semiconductor fabrication, hydraulic fracturing/drill bits, enterprise software, consumer electronics, prepaid calling cards, and entertainment lighting. Chambers characterizes him as a trial lawyer with particular expertise in technology and telecommunications mandates and in FRAND disputes; he is described across sources as having first-chaired dozens of patent/technology trials and more than a dozen contested FRAND trials or evidentiary proceedings in district court, the ITC, and arbitration.

Side of the "v." and firm context. The reported record is mixed but skews toward representing patent holders and SEP licensors — Ericsson, Nokia, Unwired Planet, Visto, Summit 6, Versata, PanOptis/Optis, TiVo/Rovi, and WiLan appear as clients in offensive assertions, ITC complaints, and royalty-setting litigation — alongside defense work for accused infringers and for companies facing FRAND/antitrust claims. He is currently a partner in Alston & Bird's Intellectual Property Litigation Group in Dallas, which he joined in June 2021 from McKool Smith, where he spent roughly 19 years and co-headed the firm's IP practice. He is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 39,040) and has served as appellate counsel before the Federal Circuit.

Notable matters (as reported by the firm and press). TCL v. Ericsson is the most consequential: he represented Ericsson in the Central District of California FRAND bench trial, and the Federal Circuit's December 5, 2019 precedential decision (TCL Communication Technology Holdings v. Ericsson) vacated the district court's FRAND rate determination and held that Ericsson was entitled to a jury trial on the "release payment" for past sales — a ruling with broad implications for how U.S. courts resolve FRAND royalty disputes. He was Ericsson's lead counsel in Ericsson v. TCL in the Eastern District of Texas, where a jury returned a $75 million willful-infringement verdict in December 2017 that the court later reinstated and enhanced to approximately $110 million. He also tried Ericsson v. D-Link, an 802.11 Wi-Fi SEP case against Intel and its customers, winning a jury verdict and a RAND bench ruling (affirmed as to liability, remanded on damages); Medtronic v. Boston Scientific, one of the largest jury verdicts in Eastern District of Texas history (settled pending appeal, 2009); Versata Software v. SAP, a nine-figure verdict that increased on retrial and was affirmed by the Federal Circuit; and Visto v. Seven Networks, a 20% royalty verdict with willfulness and an injunction. Reported settlements include Nokia v. Lenovo (H.264 and wireless patents, ITC and district court) and global Ericsson licensing disputes.

PTAB / IPR experience. He does appear in PTAB proceedings, though it reads as an adjunct to his district court practice rather than a standalone PTAB specialty. Documented examples include backup counsel for patent owner Nokia Technologies in IPR2021-00038, involvement for patent owner K-fee System in the Nespresso IPR2021-01221/01222/01223 proceedings, and representation of Uber as petitioner in IPR2022-00879. This is a limited sample and almost certainly understates his IPR activity.

Bar and education. Registered patent attorney; admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit and the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, the Texas federal district courts, and the USPTO. J.D., University of Virginia School of Law (sources conflict between 1988 and 1989; the McKool Smith bio lists 1988 with Order of the Coif and Virginia Law Review), and B.S. in mechanical engineering, Northwestern University, 1985.

Note on disambiguation and sourcing: this summary is based on the Alston & Bird professional biography and press releases, Chambers USA/Global profiles, Best Lawyers, the Sedona Conference biography, Law360 reporting, and Federal Circuit coverage of TCL v. Ericsson. It is not based on personal social media, and no non-professional personal information is included. Where sources conflict (law school class year), the discrepancy is noted rather than resolved.