Robert F. Kramer




Robert (“Rob”) Kramer is nationally recognized as one of the most experienced and winning patent litigators in the country. He has been named by IP Law360 a “Legal Lion” for his lead counsel patent infringement jury trial victories. He was selected by The California Daily Journal as one of the Top Plaintiff’s Attorneys of Year 2023.  In 2023, he was also ranked as one of the top 30 patent litigators nationally for year 2023 based on an in-depth evaluation of 17,052 patent litigators in Patexia’s Report of Best Patent Litigators of 2023, an honor reserved for top-tier professionals who demonstrated their prowess and ascended to the upper echelon in the field, according to the report. He was also ranked in the top 50 best performing patent litigators in the country for the six-year period 2017-2022 by Patexia 2023 Patent Litigation Intelligence Report, a comprehensive analysis of the best patent litigation attorneys in the country. He is recognized repeatedly, including in 2024, as a “Northern California Super Lawyer” in IP Litigation, reserved for the top 5% of attorneys nationally.

Recently, Mr. Kramer was lead counsel for plaintiff winning a $172.6 million jury verdict of willful infringement against Micro Focus Corp., a Hewlett-Packard spin-off company that acquired HP’s software business for $8 billion. This resounding victory was the largest jury verdict in the history of the Sherman Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Rob was likewise lead trial counsel winning two major jury trials in the widely followed Finisar litigation, one of the largest patent infringement cases in the country between competitor optical networking companies. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Kramer’s client in two trials, and within two hours of his closing argument in the second of these heavily fought jury trials.

Rob, as lead counsel, and the Kramer Alberti team were included on the National Law Journal’s List of “100 Largest Verdicts in the U.S,” and honored to be named on Texas Lawyer Magazine’s “Top 10 Patent Infringement Verdicts of the Year” (winning the 3rd largest verdict). Rob has represented clients in patent disputes involving a wide range of products and industries, including wireless technologies, networking, mobile and cellular telecommunications, smart grid utility networking systems, data compression and transmission, microprocessors, power over ethernet (PoE), IEEE 802.3, programmable logic arrays (PLAs), semiconductor manufacturing and packaging equipment, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), optics and optical networks, wavelength selective switches (WSS and ROADMs), databases, software, graphics, electronic gaming, industrial equipment, chemicals and adhesives, biometric authentication, and Internet patents. In addition, Rob has worked with standard essential patents (SEP) and FRAND licensing. Rob represents universities, including U Michigan, and is a member of AUTM.

Rob was a partner and national chair of the Dentons law firm’s Patent Litigation Practice from 2012-2019 before he and his team joined Kramer Alberti (then Feinberg Day), as was widely reported in The American Lawyer, IP Law 360, and other publications. He is a frequent author and lecturer on patent and intellectual property law topics and was an adjunct professor of law at Temple University and a guest lecturer at Waseda University in Tokyo teaching patent law. Rob serves as the co-chair of the American Bar Association Intellectual Property Litigation Committee’s Section 112 Subcommittee.

He served on the Board of Governors of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. Rob has been Chambers ranked, and he is consistently honored as a “Northern California Super Lawyer” in IP Litigation, including in 2023. He also serves on IP Law360’s California Editorial Board.

He has been recognized as a leading patent practitioner by Law360, IAM Patent 1000, Super Lawyers, Legal 500 US and BTI Consulting. Rob started his career in New York. He was a judicial extern for U.S. District Judge Kevin Duffy, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and upon graduating from law school was a Judicial Law Clerk for Judge Richard Simons, Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. He was trained as a litigation associate at a major New York law firm for five years before relocating to San Francisco/Silicon Valley to continue practicing as an intellectual property litigator where he was a full equity partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP.

He has extensive experience both representing and litigating against Asian companies in patent litigation and adversarial patent cross-licensing disputes. Rob lived in Tokyo for three years and was a registered Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi and a member of the Daini Tokyo Bar Association while a patent litigation partner in Morrison & Foerster’s Tokyo office.

significant matters
Wapp Technologies, LLC v. Micro Focus, Inc., HP Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Texas Case No. 4:18-cv-00469-ALM). Lead counsel, won jury trial and $172.5 million jury verdict of willful infringement (the full amount requested at trial) against publicly traded UK company that acquired HPE’s software business in multi-patent infringement case in March 2021. Verdict appears to be the largest verdict in the history of the Sherman Division courthouse in Eastern District of Texas. Opposing Counsel: Maschoff Brennan LLP, Shelton Coburn LLP.
Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (E.D. Texas).  Lead counsel in a substantial patent infringement case involving automatic brightness control technology implemented in Samsung mobile phones and televisions. His team won the claim construction and mostly all pre-trial motions. The case settled favorably on confidential terms on the eve of jury trial after defeating Samsung’s motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions and motions to strike expert opinions, and motions in limine. Opposing Counsel: Covington & Burling LLP.
University of Michigan v. Leica Microsystems, Inc. (N.D. California). Lead counsel representing University of Michigan in an important patent infringement action enforcing the university’s leading edge patented microscope technology. Opposing Counsel: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP.
Broadband iTV v., Inc. (W.D. Texas). Lead counsel representing pioneering video on demand (VOD) and content management technology company, BBiTV, in multi-patent case focusing on Amazon Prime and related streaming media services. Opposing Counsel: Fenwick & West LLP
Broadband iTV, Inc. v. AT&T, DirecTV, Dish Network LLC (W.D. Texas).  Lead counsel representing pioneering video on demand and content management technology company, BBiTV, in three consolidated 5-patent cases filed in December 2019. Opposing Counsel: Baker Botts LLP, and Orrick LLP.
Express Mobile, Inc. v. Google, Facebook, Salesforce, Slack Inc., eBay, Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Texas & N.D Cal.)  Lead counsel representing plaintiff, leading developer of software tools, in large multi-patent related patent infringement cases. Opposing Counsel: Sidley & Austin LLP, Fenwick & West LLP, Orrick LLP.
Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc. (Fed. Cir.). Mr. Kramer was lead counsel and secured a resounding victory in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for client optical networking company Nistica, Inc., a subsidiary of Fujikura Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, in the Federal Circuit Court in one of the largest patent cases litigated in recent years. On April 5, 2018, the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC ruled unanimously affirming Nistica’s complete victory in two jury trials that Mr. Kramer won in this large 6-patent case. The Federal Circuit’s decision issued within 24-hours of Mr. Kramer’s oral argument. Case No. 17 -1649. Opposing Counsel: Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and Radulescu LLP.
Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Mr. Kramer was lead counsel and won two large jury trials for defendant Nistica, Inc., a subsidiary of Fujikura, Ltd., in one of the largest patent infringement cases in the country. Plaintiff Finisar sought a permanent injunction against a competitor to protect a billion dollars of revenue in this large six-patent case. Mr. Kramer and his team won two rounds of claim construction proceedings, summary judgment as to some patent claims, and then two large jury trials. In this hard-fought multi-year battle, Mr. Kramer was lead counsel at two jury trials delivering the opening statements, closing arguments, and conducting the direct and cross-examinations of the inventors and the parties’ technical experts on patent infringement. The Court entered judgment in Mr. Kramer’s client’s favor ordering that plaintiff take nothing and dismissing its entire case after trial, including dismissing all claims in all six patents as to all accused products. These jury trial victories were reported in ALM Media California Verdict Search as being among the most significant Intellectual Property jury trial wins. Mr. Kramer defended these jury verdict victories in the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the verdicts. Opposing Counsel: Weil Gotshal LLP and Radulescu LLP. The case is Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:13-cv-03445.
EON IP Holdings, LLC v. Landis+Gyr, Inc., Silver Spring Networks, Inc., Itron, Inc., Elster Solutions Corp, Trilliant Networks, Aclara Power-Line Systems, Inc. (E.D. Texas).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing Sliver Spring Networks, Inc., a Silicon Valley “smart grid” networking company, in a patent case relating to mesh networking data communications systems. Mr. Kramer achieved a complete victory for Silver Spring following a jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas and a successful Federal Circuit appeal completed in July 2016. The plaintiff settled with Silver Spring’s five co-defendants, competitor smart meter companies Landis+Gyr, Itron et al., before trial, resulting in a substantial recovery. Silver Spring went to trial and, upon successful completion of the Federal Circuit appeal, achieved a complete victory with all of the plaintiff’s patent infringement claims being dismissed. In July 2016, EON was ordered to pay Mr. Kramer’s client, Silver Spring’s, litigation costs of more than $600,000 incurred in defending this action. (E.D. Texas Case No. 6:11-cv-00317; Federal Circuit Case No. 2015-1237).
Strikeforce Technologies, Inc. v. Gemalto, N.V., Gemalto, Inc., SafeNet, Inc. (D. Mass.).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing defendants Gemalto and SafeNet, international digital security companies and the world’s largest manufacturer of SIM cards, in a competitor-versus-competitor patent infringement case focusing on two-factor, out-of-band authentication keystroke encryption technology and products. Opposing Counsel: Ropes & Gray LLP.
Albert Jones Inc. v. Asus, Apple, Google, LG Electronics, Mobilcomm, Motorola Mobility, Sony Mobile Communications (N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing a leading smartphone maker in a patent infringement action in N.D. Cal. involving smartphones and smart digital watches.
Nitride Semiconductors Co., Ltd. v. RayVio Corp. (N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing defendant RayVio Corp., an acclaimed, venture-backed Silicon Valley UV LED company in a patent infringement case filed by competitor Nitride Semiconductors Co. involving LED patent claims relating to epitaxial layer structures and epi growth techniques. The case was filed in 2017 and Mr. Kramer and his team won the claim construction in the Spring 2018, and mostly all motions in the case. RayVio filed for bankruptcy protection and dissolved in 2020 and the case was dismissed. Opposing counsel: Latham & Watkins LLP.
Nitride Semiconductors Co., Ltd. v. Digi-Key Corp. (D. Minnesota).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing Digi-Key, an on-line distributor of electronic components and board level components, in an LED patent infringement case filed by a Japanese LED company in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota based on allegedly infringing LED chips sold by RayVio Corp. Opposing counsel: Latham & Watkins LLP.
Linex Technologies. Inc. v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc. (S.D. Florida). Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing Silver Spring Networks, a smart energy grid networking company, in patent infringement litigation in the Southern District of Florida in a “rocket docket” case involving mesh network and spread-spectrum data communication systems. Opposing Counsel: Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton PA.
Blue Spike, LLC v. 3M Cogent, Inc. (E.D. Texas).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing 3M Company in multi-patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, involving electronic signal abstracting and biometric authentication systems and technologies.
St. Luke Technologies, LLC v. Gemalto, Inc. (E.D. Texas).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing defendant Gemalto (SafeNet) in patent infringement action focusing on encryption technology and products.
Tokyo Electron Ltd. — Flamm Patent Litigation (N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer was patent litigation counsel representing Tokyo Electron Ltd. (TEL), a leading Japanese supplier of semiconductor fabrication equipment, in connection with Flamm LLC’s assertion of semiconductor processing patents against third parties relating to use of wafer fabrication equipment.
Shared Medical Resources, LLC & CDX Diagnostics, Inc. v. Histologics LLC (C.D.Cal.).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing defendant Histologics LLC in patent infringement litigation between competitor medical device companies involving minimally invasive biopsy products.
Eclipse IP LLC v. John Fluevog Ltd. (D.N.J.).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel for defendant defending a patent infringement lawsuit in the District Court of New Jersey involving computer-based notification and authentication systems used in retail electronic commerce systems.
Fitness Anywhere, LLC d/b/a TRX, Inc. v. BeaverFit, Ltd. et al. (Superior Court, San Francisco).  Mr. Kramer represented defendant, a leading British fitness equipment designer and manufacturer, in a competitor dispute involving misappropriation of trade secrets and rights protected by nondisclosure agreements and unfair competition.
Sheehan Genetics LLC and Benkirk, Inc. v. Jakov P. Dulcich & Sons LLC (E.D. Cal.)  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing Sheehan Genetics LLC, a UK-based plant genetics company, and its California subsidiary and partner, a developer of grape varieties, in a declaratory judgment patent litigation in the Eastern District of California against a competitor involving a plant patent and alleged misappropriation of technology.
Sentaida International, Inc., Sentury Tire Americas, Inc. v. Toyo Tire and Rubber Co., Ltd. (C.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer represented a leading tire manufacturer in a declaratory judgment case against a competitor seeking a declaration of noninfringement and invalidity of patents covering automotive tires.
Road Science, LLC v. Telfer Oil Company et al. (E.D. Cal.) and Road Science, LLC v. Shilling, Inc. (N.D. Oklahoma).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing defendants, innovative emulsion and surfacing companies, in patent infringement lawsuits in the district courts in Northern California and Oklahoma relating to Novachip road surfacing technologies.
BS v. Fujitsu America, Inc. et al. (E.D. Texas).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing Fujitsu America, Inc., and related Fujitsu companies, in patent infringement litigation in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The defendant was accused of infringing on multiple US patents involving electronic signal processing and related technologies.
BigBand Networks, Inc. v. Imagine Communications, Inc. (Dist. Delaware).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel for defendant Imagine Communications, a well-known video compression company, in a multi-patent infringement lawsuit filed in the district court in Delaware by Imagine Communication’s publicly-traded competitor, BigBand Networks, Inc. The patents-in-suit covered high-speed video compression and transmission systems such as those developed by Imagine and used by its customer Comcast and other cable television providers. The case settled on highly favorable confidential terms in December 2011. Opposing counsel: Latham & Watkins LLP.
Bridgelux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. (E.D. Texas) and Cree, Inc. and Trustees of Boston University v. Bridgelux, Inc. (N.D. Cal. and E.D. North Carolina). Mr. Kramer represented Bridgelux, Inc., a leading venture-backed Silicon Valley high-power LED company, in a series of patent infringement cases against competitor Cree, Inc. These cases collectively involved five LED patents relating to epitaxial layer structures and epi growth techniques, electrode structures, improved light extraction techniques and GaN buffer layers, and were litigated heavily against a “big 5” LED company in multiple jurisdictions. A confidential settlement was obtained as a result of a successful strategy involving declaratory judgment actions presenting serious challenges to the validity and enforceability of the competitors’ LED patents. Opposing Counsel: Weil Gotshal LLP
Greenville Communications LLC v. Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile et al. (Dist. N.J. and E.D. Mississippi).  Mr. Kramer represented T-Mobile in a patent infringement litigation involving ring-back tone technology implemented in CDMA and GSM wireless communications systems. A §1404 transfer of litigation from Mississippi to a more favorable forum in New Jersey was achieved, followed by a stay of district court litigation pending resolution of re-examination of the patents-in-suit.
Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Foundry Networks LLC, Microsemi Corp. (PowerDsine Ltd.), D-Link Systems, Inc. (E.D. Michigan).  Mr. Kramer represented Foundry Networks (Brocade Communications Corp.), a leading provider of data networking equipment, in a patent infringement lawsuit focusing on IEEE 802.3af Power-Over-Ethernet (PoE) compliant switches, routers and midspan data communication ports and products, and involving defenses relating to reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) licensing requirements arising from the patentee’s participation in an industry standards-setting organization. The case was litigated through a successful Markman claim construction hearing and resolved favorably on summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement.
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Company, 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Mr. Kramer represented amicus RealNetworks, Inc., on appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a significant en banc case changing the scope and meaning of the written description requirement under Section 112 of the patent statute.
Ivivi Technologies, Inc. v. Regenesis Biomedical, Inc. (D.N.J.).  Mr. Kramer defended a medical device company in a competitor patent infringement suit filed by the maker of a patented medical device designed for noninvasive treatment of soft tissue wounds and therapeutic treatment. The case was settled on highly favorable confidential terms.
Litepanels LLC v. Gekko Technology Ltd.; Litepanels LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc.; and Litepanels LLC v. Switt Electronics Inc. (E.D. Texas and N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer represented a leading developer and seller of LED illumination technologies and products used in the film, commercial, and photographic industries in multiple patent infringement litigations in the Eastern District of Texas, enforcing the client’s patents against a competitors’ LED lighting systems. The cases were settled on highly favorable confidential terms following victory in a Markman claim construction hearing.
Mitchell v. Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu America, Inc. (N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer defended Fujitsu in patent litigation regarding bi-memory controlled CPU architecture and microprocessor and switching technologies, obtaining a highly favorable settlement achieved in the wake of a motion for summary judgment of patent invalidity.
Patriot Scientific Corp. and Technology Properties Ltd. v. Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu America, Inc. (N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer defended Fujitsu in patent litigation directed at high-speed microprocessor technology involving the Moore microprocessor patent portfolio asserted by Patriot Scientific and Technology Properties Ltd. (TPL, now Alliacense).
Avago Technologies, Ltd. v. IPtronics, Inc. (N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer represented a leading Silicon Valley technology company, Avago, in patent infringement litigation, enforcing the client’s patents against a competitor’s fiber optics and optoelectronics products, including VCSEL laser drivers. Opposing Counsel: Sonenshein Nath & Rosenthal LLP.
SecuGen LLC v. NITGen Co., Ltd. (American Arbitration Association [AAA] arbitration; N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer represented SecuGen, a Silicon Valley developer of optical biometric authentication technology, as lead IP trial counsel in a complex AAA arbitration against a competitor, NITGen, involving more than 25 claims and counterclaims at issue, including patent infringement, copyright, trade secrets, trade libel, trademark and license-based claims. The matter was resolved following an extensive four-week arbitration hearing and related district court proceedings. Opposing Counsel: Orrick LLP.
Fujitsu Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics, Ltd. (US ITC).  Mr. Kramer successfully defended Fujitsu in an ITC §337 patent infringement investigation and related multiple simultaneous district court litigations in US and Europe relating to DRAM and SRAM thin film semiconductor processing deposition, etching and fabrication techniques and circuitry. A favorable confidential settlement was obtained after completion of the ITC hearing and in the course of district court proceedings. Opposing Counsel: DLA Piper, Fish & Richardson LLP.
Gemstar-TV Guide International v. Echostar et al. (ITC).  Mr. Kramer successfully represented EchoStar against Gemstar-TV Guide International in what has been called the biggest-ever patent case before the ITC. Gemstar claimed that Echostar, Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., and Pioneer imported set­top boxes that infringed four US patents. EchoStar won on multiple grounds, including noninfringement, no domestic industry, and, as to the main patent, patent misuse and invalidity for failure to join a co-inventor. Opposing Counsel: O’Melveny & Myers LLP.
TeleChem International, Inc. v. Apogent Technologies and BioRobotics Inc. and TeleChem International, Inc. v. Point Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer represented the patentee in patent infringement litigation between competitor companies relating to technologies and micro-research tools employed to fabricate microarrays of DNA and other chemical and biochemical substances. A highly favorable confidential settlement was achieved upon completion of expert discovery driven by results of a Markman claim construction strategy and hearing.
Katz v. WellPoint, Inc. (E.D. Texas and C.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel representing WellPoint, Inc., a leading Fortune 50 health care company, in a patent infringement suit filed by Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing LLC. WellPoint achieved a successful confidential settlement. Opposing Counsel: Cooley LLP.
LG Philips Ltd. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. (C.D. Cal. and Dist. Del.).  Mr. Kramer represented Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. (CPT), a leading Taiwanese manufacturer of LCD flat panel displays, in patent infringement litigations involving multiple patents covering thin film transistor LCD flat panel display and notebook computer technologies against a competitor LCD manufacturer. The dispute was successfully resolved based on aggressively defending CPT in multi-front patent litigations, including jury trials in the district courts in the Central District of California and in Delaware. Opposing Counsel: Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, McKenna Long & Aldrich LLP.
International Manufacturing & Engineering, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company (S.D.N.Y. and N.D.N.Y.).  Mr. Kramer was lead counsel successfully representing Eastman Kodak in patent litigation relating to multiple LED patents. Kodak successfully won a motion to transfer the case to its home district in Rochester, NY, and then achieved a highly successful confidential settlement amid Kodak’s pending summary judgment motion with the district court litigation dismissed, and thereafter litigating disputed inventorship and patent ownership issues in an interference proceeding in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Sinclair International, Inc. v. FMC Corp. (N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer represented Sinclair International against a competitor, FMC Corp., in a patent litigation involving Sinclair’s patents covering automatic high­ speed labeling equipment. Sinclair obtained a preliminary injunction, a remedy rarely granted in patent cases, barring FMC from making and selling competing equipment covered by Sinclair’s patents.
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) Corp. (N.D. Cal.).  Mr. Kramer successfully represented AMD in multi-action microcode “chip wars” cases relating to Intel’s infringement allegations directed at AMD’s 286/386 microcode, including trial and injunction motions in the Northern District of California. Opposing Counsel: Brown & Bain LLP.
RealVision Inc. v. MacroTech Semiconductor Corp. (Arbitration conducted under auspices of International Court of Arbitration (ICC).)  Mr. Kramer served as an ICC arbitrator in an intellectual property dispute between a Taiwanese semiconductor fabrication company and a Japanese technology company. The three-arbitrator panel conducted an arbitration hearing in San Francisco and issued a written decision under ICC rules.
recognition & accolades
  • Rob was named a “fabulous trial lawyer” who “recently won a complete victory for defendant in a six patent case” by The Legal 500 US, and described Rob and his patent litigation team as being “consistently excellent” that “creates a comprehensive strategy based on patent knowledge, the industry landscape and opposing counsel.”
  • Rob has been repeatedly peer voted as a “Super Lawyer in IP Litigation” for the past 15 years, including in 2021.
  • Ranked by IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals in 2018 and 2017, reporting that Rob “has an outstanding track record” and “enjoyed a banner 12 months in the courtroom,” including “scoring a total victory” in a “bet-the-farm case— one of the largest in the Northern District of California.”
  • Ranked by Chambers for IP Litigation in 2018-2019.
  • IP Law360 named Rob as an elite “Legal Lion” in 2017 for his significant jury trial victories in complex patent infringement litigations against formidable law firms.
  • Recommended, The Legal 500 in the area of Patent Litigation, 2018.
  • Recognized Practitioner, Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Intellectual Property: Patent, 2018.
  • Ranked, Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Magazine’s Patent 1000, California Intellectual Property-Litigation 2018.
  • Repeatedly named as a “Super Lawyer” by San Francisco Magazine/Daily Journal, including in 2020.
  • Featured: Current Developments United States – “US Supreme Court to Decide Important Patent Exhaustion Questions on Foreign Sales and Post-sale Restrictions,” Journal of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand, March 2017.
  • Mr. Kramer’s back-to-back patent infringement jury trial victories in the Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:13-cv-03445 case, were reported in ALM Media California Verdict Search as among the most significant Intellectual Property verdicts in 2016 ( Vol. 15, Issue 40, at 20-21, October 10, 2016).
  • Mr. Kramer’s IP litigation team in Silicon Valley named the winner of Corporate LiveWire – Global Awards 2016 & 2017 for “IP Litigation.”
  • Featured: Current Developments United States – “The Federal Circuit’s First Reversal of an Inter Partes Review Decision by the Patent Office: What does this mean going forward in IPR proceedings?”, Journal of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2015.
in the media


publications and insights
  • Co-author,” Federal Circuit Provides Guidance On Patent Damages and Apportionment,” QuickReadBuzz (National Assoc. of Certified Valuators anAnalysts), April 18, 2018.
  • Co-author, “Exmark: Reasonable Royalty Damages, Apportionment and Expert Opinions,” IP Watchdog, February 2, 2018.
  • Co-author, “Federal Circuit Recognizes a Broad Scope of Attribution Under the Doctrine of Divided Infringement,” IP Watchdog, January 17, 2018.
  • Co-author, “Supreme Court Eliminates Key Defense Patent Infringement,” IP Watchdog, March 28, 2017.
  • Co-author, “US Supreme Court to Decide Important Patent Exhaustion Questions on Foreign Sales,” Journal of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand, March 2017.
  • Co-author, “Supreme Court to Decide Whether Supplying a Component from the United States to a Manufacturing Facility Abroad Can Constitute Patent Infringement,” Intellectual Properly Technology Law Journal, Vol. 29, Feb. 2017.
  • “Judge Backs Nistica’s Win In Finisar Network,” January 23, 2017.
  • Co-author, “Federal Circuit to Review Availability of Appeal of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Institution Decisions,” January 6, 2017.
  • Co-author, “Litigating Willful Patent Infringement in a Post-Halo World,” IP Watchdog, December 8, 2016.
  • Co-author, “US Supreme Court to Decide  Important  Patent  Exhaustion Questions on Foreign Sales and Post-Sale Restrictions,”  IPFrontline, December 8, 2016.
  • Co-author, “Just How Certain is ‘Reasonable Certainty’ In Patent Litigation? Some Practical Tips to Meet the Evolving Standard for Indefiniteness,” Journal of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand, March 24, 2016.
  • Co-Author, “The Federal Circuit’s First Reversal of an Inter Partes Review Decision by the Patent Office: What does this mean going forward in IPR proceedings?,” Journal of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2015.
  • Co-author, “FRAND Ruling Brings Options For Patent Licensees: Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, IncIP Law360, August 17, 2015.
  • Co-author, “What Proxyconn Means For Future Inter Partes Reviews,” IP Law360, July 14, 2015.
  • Co-author, ” Tips For Meeting The Evolving Standard For Indefiniteness,” IP Law360, May 5, 2015.
  • Co-author, “Navigating The Post-Akamai Landscape: Recent Changes In the Law Of Induced Patent Infringement”, IP Law360, October 10, 2012.
  • Co-author, “Coordinating Litigation and Re-Examination,” The Recorder, June 1, 2012.
  • Co-author, “Patent Infringement Liability: What Is The ‘Entire Market Value’?,” San Francisco Daily Journal, April 18, 2012.
  • Co-author, “Patent Infringement Liability: The Entire Market Value Rule?,” Los Angeles Daily Journal, April 182012.
  • Contributing author, “A Closer Look at IP Damages,” Edison In The Boardroom Revisited: How Leading Companies Realize Value from Their Intellectual Property, Appendix C, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
  • Co-author, “What Did You Invent?: The Federal Circuit En Banc Revisits The Patent Law’s Written Description And Enablement Requirements,” Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property, Vol. 16, No. 24, March 23, 2010.
  • Co-author, “The Federal Circuit’s En Banc Consideration of Claim Construction in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,” Patent Strategy Management, ALM, March 2005.
activities and affiliations

Rob served as pro bono legal counsel for Kids Cooking For Life, a Bay Area nonprofit corporation that provides programs for economically disadvantaged children, teaching the importance of nutrition and healthy cooking and eating habits as well as addressing childhood obesity diseases such as type 2 diabetes.

speeches and presentations
  • Speaker, “Patent Litigation: 5 Ways to Win a Case,” IP Dealmakers Forum Conference, New York, NY, December 6, 2023.
  • Speaker, “Pushing For A Diverse Future In Intellectual Property: Creating Opportunities and Careers for Women and Minorities in IP Litigation,” Burford Capital Webinar, New York, NY, September 27, 2022.
  • Speaker, Opal’s Global ABS and Structured Finance Summit 2021, “Patent Litigation Strategy & Financing,” New York Conference, January 28, 2021.
  • Speaker, Silicon Valley Association of General Counsel (SVAGC), 29th Annual Meeting, Advanced Intellectual Property Litigation Strategies, Santa Clara Convention Center, Silicon Valley, CA, October 16, 2018.
  • Speaker, Licensing Executives Society International (LESI) 2018 Annual Conference, San Diego, California, April 30, 2018.
  • Speaker, Women In Intellectual Property & Law IP Strategy Summit Silicon Valley, “Lessons Learned and Issues Confronted By Women IP Litigators,” Palo Alto, California, June 14, 2017.
  • Speaker, 5th Annual IP Strategy Summit: Silicon Valley, “NPE Defense and Best Practices: It Depends Is Not a Strategy,” Palo Alto, California, June 13, 2017.
  • Speaker, IP Counsel Cafe 2017 Annual Conference “Advanced Strategies for Litigating An IPR and Co-Pending Patent Infringement Action in District Court,” Palo Alto, CA, May 10-11, 2017.
  • Speaker, Silicon Valley Association of General Counsel (SVAGC), 27th Annual Meeting, “Managing Risk: Changes In The Law Of Willful Infringement and Recovery of Enhanced Damages And Attorneys’ Fees in Patent Infringement Litigation,” Santa Clara Convention Center, Silicon Valley, CA, November 17, 2016.
  • Speaker, 2nd Annual IP Strategy Summit, “Patent Infringement Litigation Between Competitor Companies, Advanced Strategies,” Seattle, Washington, October 18, 2016.
  • Speaker, IP Counsel Cafe 2016 Annual Conference “Patent Protection in Flux: Emerging Trends and How to Respond: Standard Essential Patents — Developments in FRAND Damages, Palo Alto, CA, May 3-4, 2016.
  • Speaker, “Definite Change: Nautilus Gets Some Traction, The Law of Patent Claim Indefiniteness,” Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Chat Channel webinar, October 7, 2015.
  • Speaker, Silicon Valley Association of General Counsel (SVAGC), 26th Annual All Hands Meeting, “Patent Litigation Strategy in 2014,” Santa Clara Convention Center, CA, November 2014.
  • Speaker, IP Strategy Summit: Patent Enforcement, “Post-Grant Review, Inter Partes Review (“IPR): Coordinating District Court and ITC Patent Litigation with IPR Strategy,” Palo Alto, CA, June 19, 2014.
  • Speaker, the IP Defense Summit, “Patent Infringement Litigation Between Competitor Companies: Advanced Strategy & Management Issues,” Four Seasons, Palo Alto, CA, January 21, 2014.
  • Speaker, Silicon Valley Association of General Counsel (SVAGC), 25th Annual All Hands Meeting, “Advanced Management of IP & Patent Litigation Risks,” Santa Clara Convention Center, CA, December 4, 2013.
  • Speaker, IP Law & Management Institute, “Successfully Managing Your IP Assets: Advanced Strategies for IP Management, Risk Assessment and Managing Patent Litigation,” San Diego, CA, November 3, 2013.
  • Speaker, IP Strategy Summit: Patent Enforcement, “Likely Defenses Presented When Enforcing Your Patents Against Competitors: Moves and Counter-Moves,” Palo Alto, CA, October 17, 2013.
  • Speaker, “Strategies in Light” 14th annual LED and lighting conference, “IP Business and Strategies in the LED Industry,” Santa Clara Convention Center, Santa Clara, CA, February 2013.
  • Speaker, Corporate Counsel Magazine’s 4th Annual “Controlling Legal Costs” Conference, New York City, November 28, 2012.
  • Speaker, “Coordinating Patent Infringement Litigation with Reexamination: Strategies,” American Lawyer Media IP Panel Speaker Program, Palo Alto, CA, April 2012.
  • Speaker, “The International Trade Commission (ITC) § 337 Patent Cases, NPEs, and Post-Grant Proceedings,” Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), US Patent Office Inter Partes Proceedings Committee, November 2011.
  • Speaker, “Recent Developments in ITC Patent Litigation: Nonpracticing Entities (NPEs) in § 337 Patent Cases in the ITC,” Corporate Counsel 7th Annual IP Counsel Forum, San Jose, CA, March 2011.
  • Speaker, “Patent Reexamination Strategies In US Patent Litigation,” Association of Corporate Counsel, San Francisco, CA, November 2009.
  • Speaker, “The Essential Skills and What You Need to Know About Business Development,” ABTL Young Lawyers Committee, San Francisco, CA, October 2009.
  • Speaker, “Working With an Expert Witness at Trial: Strategies and Tips for Intellectual Property and Business Litigators,” ABTL, LDC, San Francisco, CA, September 2008.
  • Member, AUTM 2023
  • Member, IP Law360 California Board, 2022-2023
  • Co-Chair, American Bar Association’s IPL (Intellectual Property Litigation) Patent Litigation Committee’s Section 112 Subcommittee, 2018-2022
  • Board of Governors, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Northern California Division, 2008- 2010
  • Member, Intellectual Property Owners Association (“IPO”), 2004-present
  • Member, The Sedona Conference, Patent Litigation Best Practices and Markman Process and Claim Construction Practice Groups
  • Member, British American Business Council chapter in Northern California, 2011- 2012
  • Member, San Francisco Bay Area Intellectual Property American Inn of Court, 2010-2019
  • American Bar Association Member, Intellectual Property Law Section, 1996-present
  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association, IP Practice in Japan Committee, 2008- present
  • Moot Court Judge, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, 2010- 2017
  • Member, Daini Tokyo Bar Association, 2000- 2001
  • Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association, 2004- 2009
  • Member, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association, 2005-2010
  • Member, Japan Society of Northern California, 2017-2019
  • Member, Licensing Executives Society, Northern California Chapter, 2004-2007
  • The Bar Association of San Francisco, Co-chair, Public Education and Affairs Committee, Barrister’s Club, 1998
other experience
  • Rob served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Temple University School of Law in Tokyo, Japan. He taught a course contrasting patent litigation and strategy in the US and Japanese court systems. He also served as an Adjunct Professor at Waseda University in Tokyo, Japan, lecturing about US IP Law.
  • Rob has served as an ICC arbitrator in an arbitration under the auspices of the International Court of Arbitration.
  • In Japan, Rob was a registered Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi and a member of the Daini Tokyo Bar Association while practicing law for three years as a patent litigation partner in Morrison & Foerster LLP’s Tokyo office from 1998 to 2001.
Juris Doctor
Brooklyn Law School, New York, NY 1989
Law Review Editor
Dean’s Merit Scholarship

Bachelor of Arts (cum laude), English Literature 1986
New York University, New York, NY
Merit Scholar, Dean’s List
California State Bar
New York State Bar
N.D. California
C.D. California
E.D. California
S.D. California
S.D. New York
E.D. New York
N.D. New York
W.D. New York
E.D. Texas
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Pro hac vice admission W.D. Texas, Delaware, S.D. Florida, E.D. Michigan, New Jersey, PTAB in United States Patent Office

Registered Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi and member Daini Tokyo Bar Association (formerly)
venue experience
E.D. Texas
W.D. Texas
N.D. California
C.D. California
S.D. New York
E.D. New York
S.D. Florida
International Trade Commission
Federal Circuit