Robert A. Gutkin
experiencerAndrews Kurth Kenyon
Image of a vault
Intellectual Property & Technology Powerhouse
1350 I Street, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
P: +1.202.662.2785
F: +1.202.662.2739



Robert A. Gutkin


Washington, DC Office
1350 I Street, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
P: +1.202.662.2785
F: +1.202.662.2739

Robert A. Gutkin is Counsel in the firm's Intellectual Property section. Bob has tried cases in state and federal courts before judges and juries, and participated in all aspects of alternative dispute resolution, including arbitrations and mediations. He has also been successful in developing innovative approaches and strategy to resolve significant disputes and avoid litigation.

Bob's work on intellectual property matters includes the representation of clients in patent infringement cases on technologies as diverse as: surgical lasers, cryogenic devices, magnetic resonance imaging equipment, cellular technology, fiber optics, catalytic converters, lubricants for dental handpieces, biodegradable film, gravity feed displays and smart card manufacturing. He has tried patent infringement cases on complex technology before juries, where it was critical to simplify the presentation of issues of law and technology. Bob also regularly represents clients on matters involving trademark, copyright and unfair competition cases.

Bob has represented clients in complex commercial litigation, and in proceedings before the Senate Committee on Banking and the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform.

He is a frequent lecturer on topics that include arbitration, electronic discovery, patent litigation strategies and has served as an instructor for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. He has served on the Discovery Committee for the Intellectual Property Owners Association and has published articles on patent litigation topics that include the due diligence process prior to filing patent litigation.

Representative Experience

  • Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v. Innovia Films Limited, et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Innovia in patent dispute involving biodegradable film patents
  • Summit Data Systems LLC v. Infortrend Corporation, et al. (Del.) – Represented Infortrend against allegations of patent infringement involving RAID storage systems
  • Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (N.D. Ca.) – Representing Phigenix in patent infringement action against Genentech involving breast cancer treatment
  • UHS of Delaware v. United Health Services, Inc., et al. (M.D. Pa.) – Representing United Health Services in trademark infringement matter
  • The PACid Group, LLC v. SerComm Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented SerComm against allegations of patent infringement involving network equipment
  • EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. SerComm Corporation, et al. (N.D. Ca.) – Representing SerComm against allegations of patent infringement involving network equipment
  • Fonar Corporation v. HealthSouth Corporation (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented HealthSouth against allegations of patent infringement of the multi-angle oblique imaging feature on MRI scanners
  • Ciena Corporation v. Corvis Corporation (D. Del.) – Represented Corvis against allegations of patent infringement of Wavelength Division Multiplexing system used in fiber optic communications
  • Trounson Automation LLC v. Yaskawa Electric Corporation (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Trounson in pursuing patent infringement of a machine tool servo control system
  • Leighton Technologies LLC v. Oberthur Card System; and HID Corporation v. Leighton Technologies LLC (N.D. Ohio and C.D. Cal.) – Representing Leighton in multiple cases pursuing patent infringement of a process for manufacturing plastic cards with integrated circuits
  • Linz v. Campbell Soup (D.N.J.) – Represented Campbell Soup against allegations of trade secret misappropriation and design patent infringement involving gravity feed displays used to sell soup products
  • Motorola v. Qualcomm and Qualcomm v. Motorola (S.D. Cal.) – Represented Qualcomm in a series of lawsuits covering 10 patents that included Qualcomm’s CDMA standard technology, as well as Motorola’s flip phone design
  • Kvaerner Chemetics v. Fleck – Represented Kvaerner in pursuing patent infringement of catalytic converter used in sulfuric acid production
  • TRG Accessories, LLC v. InGEAR Corporation, Olivet International, Inc. v. InGEAR Corporation, and Cool Gear International, Inc. v. InGEAR Corporation – Represented InGEAR against allegations of infringement of trademark, and utility and design patents involving luggage
  • Agio v. Numark (E.D. Va.) – Represented Numark in a multipatent dispute involving the manufacture of sling chairs