4208 Six Forks Road Suite 1400, Raleigh, NC USA 27609
Kasey Koballa is a trial lawyer who specializes in patent litigation at federal district courts and the International Trade Commission. Kasey has extensive experience in all phases of litigation in U.S. district courts, including the Eastern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, Eastern District of North Carolina, and Northern District of California, as well as importation investigations at the International Trade Commission and Amazon Patent Evaluation Express Procedure (APEX) proceedings. She represents clients from a wide range of industries, including technology, chemicals, consumer goods, semiconductors, apparel, and media. As a registered patent attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Kasey is exceptionally skilled at managing complex technical patent cases.
Most recently, Kasey was a member of a trial team at the International Trade Commission in which the Administrative Law Judge found their client had not violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act. Kasey was also a member of the trial team representing GREE, Inc. in a series of patent infringement suits against Supercell, resulting in over $100 million jury verdicts in GREE’s favor following two jury trials in 2020 and 2021.
While attending North Carolina State University, Kasey was a member of the Women’s Varsity Soccer team and a Research Assistant in its Hyperthermophile Lab where she conducted research and performed lab experiments on genetically-engineered organisms that thrive in very high temperatures.
Kasey was named one of Business North Carolina magazine's "Young Guns (Best Under 40)" in 2024. She was recognized as a North Carolina "Rising Star" in 2024 and 2025 for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine.
Experience
Represented Respondent Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. (“MRI”) in patent infringement and importation investigation at ITC brought by Samsung, related to environmentally-protected LCD digital display technology. Kasey handled the examination of multiple witnesses at trial, including cross-examining one of Samsung’s technical expert witnesses and directing the examination of MRI’s CFO and corporate representative. After trial, the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination found multiple Samsung patents both not infringed by MRI and invalid. Additionally, the Initial Determination found that Samsung had not satisfied the domestic industry requirement for any of the asserted patents. The Initial Determination thereby found that MRI had not violated Section 337. In re Components for Certain Environmentally-Protected LCD Digital Displays and Products Containing Same, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1349.
Represented adidas AG, adidas North America, Inc., adidas America, Inc., and adidas International Trading AG in patent infringement and importation investigation at ITC brought by Nike, Inc., related to the design and manufacture of shoe uppers for knitted footwear, with related action in Oregon federal court. One of the largest patent cases in the footwear industry, the case involved nine U.S. patents from multiple distinct families of patents, each covering a different subject matter. After completing both fact and expert discovery, the case was settled on confidential terms shortly before the evidentiary hearing at the ITC. In re Certain Knitted Footwear, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1289 (Administrative Law Judge Bhattacharyya); Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG et al., No. 3:21-cv-01780 (D. Or.) (Judge You).
Represented GREE, Inc., a Japanese gaming and internet media company in a large-scale patent battle with Supercell, a Finnish mobile game development company. Kilpatrick Townsend launched suits involving more than 20 patents against Supercell. The case has led to a complex series of litigations in district court resulting in more than $100 million in jury verdicts in favor of GREE, as well as at the PTAB and before the Federal Circuit. The Kilpatrick Townsend team obtained a jury verdict for GREE in the Eastern District of Texas of willful infringement, asserting five patents and an award of at least $8.5 million for damages against Supercell in September 2020, and a second jury verdict of willful infringement in favor of GREE and an award of at least $92 million in damages in May 2021. GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Nos. 2:19-cv-00237, 2:19-cv-00310, 2:19-cv-00311, 2:19-cv-00070, 2:19-cv-00071 (E.D. Tex.) (Judge Gilstrap).
Representing Lenovo Group Limited in a patent litigation action in the Eastern District of Texas. ServStor Technologies LLC v. Lenovo Group Limited, No. 2:24-cv-00204-JRG-RSP (Judge Gilstrap).
Representing Lenovo Group Limited in a patent litigation action in the Eastern District of Texas. Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. v. Lenovo Group Limited, No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG (Judge Gilstrap).
Representing a major television manufacturer in a patent litigation action in the Eastern District of Texas. Phenix Longhorn LLC v. AUO Corporation, et. al., No. 2:23-cv-00477-RWS-RSP (Judge Schroeder).
Representing Flip Phone Games Inc. in a patent litigation action in the Eastern District of Texas and PTAB proceedings. Flip Phone Games Inc. v. PLR Worldwide Sales Limited, No. 2:23-cv-00139-JRG (Judge Gilstrap); PLR Worldwide Sales Limited v. Flip Phone Games, Inc., IPR2024-00132, -00133, -00171, -00200, and -00209 (P.T.A.B.).
Representing Motorola Mobility. LLC in a patent litigation action in the Northern District of California. Largan Precision Co, Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-09138-JSW (N.D. Cal. (Judge White).
Represented Molnlycke Health Care AG in a patent litigation action in the Northern District of Georgia. The case settled favorably. M.E.A.C. Engineering, Ltd. v. Molnlycke Health Care AG, No. 1:24-cv-00179-MLB (Judge Brown).
Represented a leading Fortune 500 technology company in patent infringement suits in the Western District of Texas and the Northern District of California.
Represented Meta Platforms, Inc. in a patent litigation action in the Western District of Texas. The case settled. VideoShare, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00254-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (Judge Albright).
Represented Lenovo (United States), Inc. in a patent litigation action in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Shamrock Innovations, LLC v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., No. 5:22-cv-102-FL (E.D.N.C.) (Judge Flanagan).
Represented Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC in a patent litigation action in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Syngenta asserted two patents related to fungicide products. The case settled favorably. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC, No. 5:19-cv-00509 (E.D.N.C.) (Judge Dever).
Represented Rothy’s, Inc. in a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of California. Rothy’s obtained a consent judgment and permanent injunction, validating Rothy’s design patents. Rothy’s, Inc. v. Birdies, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-02438-VC (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Chhabria).
Represented Facebook, Inc. in a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff asserted a patent related to an operational support system framework against Facebook. The case settled. BCS Software, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-695 (W.D. Tex.) (Judge Albright).
Represented Britax Child Safety, Inc. in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Britax asserted two patents related to convertible child car seats against defendants Nuna International BV and Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. The case settled. Britax Child Safety, Inc. v. Nuna International BV, et al., No. 17-cv-2724 (E.D. Pa.) (Judge Leeson).
Insights View All
William & Mary Law School J.D. (2018) Intellectual Property Concentration, CALI Award
North Carolina State University B.S. (2015) Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Minor in Biotechnology, summa cum laude, Valedictorian, Top 10 Scholar Athlete Award
North Carolina (2018)
District of Columbia (2020)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2019)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (2021)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (2020)
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (2019)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2018)
Leadership Raleigh, Raleigh Chamber of Commerce (Class 48)
International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association (ITCTLA), Member (2019-Present)
ChIPs | Advancing Women in Technology, Law and Policy, Member (2019-Present)
Junior League of Raleigh, Member (2020-2024)
Disclaimer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.
