Richard Rochford is a partner in the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group in the New York office of Haynes and Boone, LLP. He has extensive trial and appellate experience, having served as lead counsel in more than one hundred cases in the federal district courts and having argued more than a dozen appeals. Rich has successfully handled patent and trade secret litigation matters in all major technical disciplines; his current patent cases involve chemical catalyst technology created by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist, software, medical devices, and VOIP technologies.
In other recent intellectual property litigation, Rich and his team obtained the following results:
- MacKenzie-Childs LLC v. MacKenzie Childs: On behalf of plaintiff, obtained Second Circuit affirmance of ownership of the MACKENZIE-CHILDS® mark and dismissal of all counterclaims.
- Crimson Trace, Inc. v. LaserMax, Inc.: On behalf of defendant, invalidated plaintiff's key patents, obtained royalty-free licenses on the remaining patents in suit, and received an award of sanctions from the Federal District Court in Oregon.
- Tierra Telecom v. Level 3 Communications, et al.: On behalf of defendant Global Crossing, obtained transfer of this patent infringement case from Virginia to New York, leading to a successful resolution of all claims.
Rich regularly serves as an arbitrator or mediator in major patent, trademark and trade secret disputes administered by CPR. His extensive experience with alternative dispute resolution processes and techniques has enabled him to achieve successful results for clients in numerous arbitration and mediation proceedings.
He is AV® Peer Review Rated Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell® Law Directory. He is also listed as a New York Super Lawyer in Intellectual Property Litigation, 2011-2013.
Rich is an adjunct professor at Syracuse University College of Law, where he has taught for fifteen years. He regularly speaks to legal and professional audiences on various intellectual property protection and litigation issues. Rich has made presentations at national meetings of the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the International Trademark Association, Intellectual Property Owners, the American Chemical Society, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Publications and Speeches
- "Anatomy of an IP Litigation," CLE presentation, October/November 2011.
- "Time for Reform: Inventors should get what they invent," Rochester Business Journal, September 9, 2011.
- "Lawyers in the Crosshairs: Ethical Dilemmas," CLE presentation, June 2011.
- "Favorable Conclusion for LaserMax in Patent Infringement Litigation," Intellectual Property Today, February 7, 2011.
- "Intellectual Property Litigation of the Future: Copyright and Trade Secrets," CLE presentation, May 2010.
- "Patent Litigation Evolves Slowly in Shaky Economy," Quoted, Law360, January 14, 2009.
- "Q and A with Richard D. Rochford," Law360, October 25, 2007.
- "'Big Suits': Gillette v. Energizer Holdings," American Lawyer, November 26, 2003.
- American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section
- International Trademark Association, Panel of Neutrals
- Virginia State Bar
- District of Columbia Bar
- Monroe County Bar Association, Volunteer Legal Services Project
03/28/2014 - Supreme Court Confirms Broad Reach of Lanham Act False Advertising Claims
Confronted with three different standing tests applied by the Circuit courts to Lanham Act false advertising claims, the Supreme Court has answered the question of which test to apply: “None of the above.” In Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
, Slip op. March 25, 2014, Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected each of the tests employed by the Circuits in favor of a “zone of interests” test.
05/16/2013 - Nuggets in the Ashes: A Few Guideposts Unearthed from CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation
The Federal Circuit released the results of its en banc
hearing of a case involving the issue of what is patent eligible subject matter under section 101 of the Patent Act.
08/03/2012 - CLS Bank and Bancorp: Back to Back Federal Circuit Decisions Offer Different Conclusions on Patentability
The issue of whether particular inventions include “patent eligible” subject matter under § 101 of the patent statute has become highly controversial in recent years, raising questions with high economic stakes and profound legal and philosophical implications. Twice the Supreme Court has entered the fray, first in Bilski v. Kappos
in 2010, and earlier this year in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.