Mitch Stockwell focuses his practice on intellectual property dispute resolution, with particular emphasis on patent infringement, trade secret and related intellectual property litigation and licensing transactions. He also handles inter partes reviews, reexaminations and other adversary proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Mr. Stockwell has represented companies in over 100 lawsuits and arbitrations in federal courts throughout the country. He has tried to verdict, and litigated through judgment and appeal, more than a dozen disputes. He has litigated and evaluated technology disputes, patents, and trade secret claims in technologies including cable and telephony communications, wireless communications (including GSM, NMTS and VOIP standards) software, e-commerce, electronics, medical products (including athletic knee and hip systems) and athletic shoes and equipment.
Mr. Stockwell was selected by his clients to BTI Consulting’s 2010 and 2011 Client Service All-Star Team in recognition of his client service excellence. He was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Intellectual Property Law and Patent Litigation in 2024 and the 16 years immediately preceding. He has been named repeatedly for Life Sciences to The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers and the International Who's Who of Patent Lawyers. Mr. Stockwell was also recognized as a Georgia “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation in 2023 and the 14 years immediately preceding by Super Lawyers magazine. He is listed in the 2023 and each of the 14 years immediately preceding editions of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. Mr. Stockwell has been recognized as one of Georgia Trend’s 2012 “Legal Elite” in the areas of General Practice/Trial Law and Intellectual Property Law. He has been selected as a “2013 Top Rated Lawyer in Intellectual Property” by Martindale-Hubbell and American Lawyer Media in The American Lawyer & Corporate Counsel magazine. Mr. Stockwell was named an “IP Star” by Managing Intellectual Property magazine in 2023 and the ten years immediately preceding. He was named a top patent practitioner by IAM Patent 1000 – The World's Leading Patent Practitioners in 2023 and the ten years immediately preceding. In 2023, Mr. Stockwell was recognized as an IAM Strategy 300 Global Leader. He was honored with Managing IP's 2018 Americas IP Award for Outstanding Litigator: Georgia and again in 2021 as Practitioner of the Year (Litigation) in Georgia. Mr. Stockwell is AV® Preeminent™ rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
Mr. Stockwell regularly assists companies with intellectual property and related disputes and counseling. He has spoken on related topics at seminars sponsored by the ABA, PLI and various state and national bar and CLE organizations. Mr. Stockwell acted as an adjunct professor for the University of Georgia on intellectual property courses, and is an active member in the State Bar of Georgia.
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; Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG et al., No. 3:21-cv-01780 (D. Or.)
In Thryv, Inc v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), Click-to-Call Technologies LP (“CTC”) asserted patent infringement claims against our client, the successor to YellowPages.com LLC. The patent claimed technology that allowed users to make a phone call by clicking on a link in a website. In response to the patent infringement actions, Kilpatrick Townsend attorneys filed an inter partes review of the patent asserted by CTC. After briefing and a hearing, the Board invalidated 13 claims of the asserted patent. After multiple appeals, the Federal Circuit vacated that finding in view of finding a prior suit barred the IPR proceedings. We successfully petitioned for certiorari, persuading the Supreme Court to reverse the Federal Circuit and ultimately uphold the Board’s findings.
Successfully represented the patent owner in four, serial ex parte reexaminations brought by Medtronic, a large medical device company. After the reexaminations, obtained a judgment in excess of $12 million that was affirmed on appeal.
Succesfully represented parties in proceedings before the International Trade Commission. For example, successfully defended ARRIS in patent infringement and importation investigation brought by Rovi, related to on-screen programing guide technology before Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw, with related actions in E.D. Texas and New York State Court. In re Digital Video Receivers, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1001. Likewise, represented ARRIS in a patent infringement and importation investigation brought by OpenTV/Nagra/Kudelski, related to digital content and voice command technology. Trial is estimated for November 2017 before Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex. In re Certain Digital Television Set-Top Boxes, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1041.
Served as lead counsel on behalf of Cox Communications, Inc. in multiple suits involving technology litigation. Most recently, served as lead counsel in an action involving a patent license and settlement agreement concerning T-Mobile in Delaware Chancery Court, which resulted in a successful outcome before the Delaware Supreme Court. Currently serving as lead counsel against actions brought by Entropic Communications LLC in the Central District of California involving cable technology.
Represented Ring Container Technologies, LLC in an offensive patent infringement action against a competitor in the Eastern District of Texas regarding packaging technology. After engaging in early fact discovery, the dispute favorably resolved before mediator Judge David Folsom (ret.). Ring Container Technologies, LLC v. Altium Packaging LP, No. 2:21-cv-464 (E.D. Tex.). Most recently engaged to defend Ring Container Technologies, LLC against its competitor Graham Packaging LLC in an action pending in the Western District of Kentucky.
Insights View All
University of Virginia School of Law J.D. (1993)
Virginia Military Institute B.S. (1990) Electrical Engineering, with distinction
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
American Bar Association, Member
American Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
Boys & Girls Club of DeKalb County, Board Member
Co-Chair, Atlanta Program, Practising Law Institute's Patent Litigation (2003-2010)
Federal Bar Association, Member
Patent Bar of the United States, Member
State Bar of Georgia, Investigative Panel, Former Member
University of Georgia School of Law, Former Adjunct Professor
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.