Randal S. Alexander

My focus

I believe that understanding my clients’ businesses and strategic goals is essential to achieving favorable outcomes and delivering true value. Every client’s approach to intellectual property is unique, shaped by their industry, market position, competitive landscape, and long-term vision. By developing a deep understanding of these factors, I can tailor my litigation strategy to align with their broader business objectives.

This client-centric approach allows me to anticipate potential risks and opportunities, craft arguments that resonate with judges and juries, and make informed decisions that support the client’s overall strategic direction. By integrating litigation strategy with the client’s business objectives, I strive to not only resolve disputes effectively but also to enhance their competitive edge, drive innovation, and maximize the value of their intellectual property assets over the long term.

I have represented a broad range of clients in patent litigation across the country in all phases of litigation and my trial experience includes both bench and jury trials. My experience spans a wide range of technologies, including life sciences, medical devices, software, telecommunications, oilfield equipment, and automotive equipment. I have also practiced before the International Trade Commission (ITC), Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), and worked on a number of Federal Circuit appeals.

Representative experience

• Represented an innovator of spinal surgery screw technology in the licensing and enforcement of his patent portfolio
• Represented a large technology company in a patent and trade dress infringement matter relating to medical wristbands
• Represented a medical device company before the ITC and district court to enforce its patents relating to argon plasma coagulation devices
• Represented a financial technology company in defense of a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Texas. The jury returned a finding of no infringement and also invalidated the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is believed this is the first case where a jury invalidated a patent under section 101 since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Berkheimer.

*Representative list includes matters handled at previous firm

Looking ahead

With the emergence of the European Union’s Unified Patent Court (UPC), there is a need to understand the implications of the new system and emerging precedents. Asserting parties will need to consider the strategic decisions regarding where to file cases and how to leverage the UPC’s feature for effective IP enforcement and management.