-
Overview
-
Experience
Introduction
Stevan litigates all phases of complex patent disputes in venues nationwide, including courts with heavy patent dockets.
Stevan Stark litigates patent disputes involving a wide range of technologies, including machine learning, AI, wireless telecommunications, networking, cloud-based technologies, data processing, radio-frequency identification, video games, and medical and consumer devices.
Stevan has prepared successful case dispositive motions, argued before U.S. district courts, and managed all phases of discovery, including preparing witnesses and taking and defending depositions, with a focus on minimizing expansive discovery. He has also represented clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and successfully defended and challenged patents before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Prior to his legal career, Stevan was a software engineer for nine years in computer imaging, medical device, and internet and cable-related technologies.
Education & credentials
- Seattle University School of Law, J.D.,
summa cum laude, Research & Technical Editor, Law Review
, 2007 - University of Utah, B.S., Computer Science, Minor Mathematics, 1996
- Washington
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- Seed Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, Associate, 2007-2010
- U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, Seattle, WA, Judicial Extern, 2007
- Amazon.com, Seattle, WA, Software Development Engineer, 2004
- Digeo, Inc., Kirkland, WA, Lead Software Engineer, 2000-2004
- Orbtek, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, Software Engineer, 1997-1999
- University of Utah, Computer Science Dept., Computer Vision and Robotics Group, Research Associate, 1996-1997
Professional recognition
Listed in Super Lawyers Magazine, “Rising Stars of Washington Law,” 2012-2017
Impact
- King County Bar Association, Member
- Washington State Bar Association, Member, 2007-present
- Washington State Patent Lawyers Association
- American Bar Association
- Seattle Intellectual Property America Inn of Court, Member
CoreLogic Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Represented Fiserv, Inc. in patent litigation relating to automated valuation models. Case settled just before trial.
EVS Codec Technologies, LLC et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Huawei in a patent case related to audio codecs. Successfully settled.
F5 Networks Inc. v. Radware
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Representing F5 Networks in a patent litigation relating to networking security and application protocols.
IA Labs v. Nintendo Company, Ltd., et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Represented Nintendo in patent litigation involving exercise-related video game accessories.
In re Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communication Devices
U.S. International Trade Commission
Defended HTC Corporation against allegations of patent infringement relating to performance and power management in semiconductors used in wireless communication devices.
LBS Innovations, LLC v. Aaron Brothers, Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Adams Golf in patent litigation related to online store locators.
Milestone Company, Ltd., et al. v. Nintendo of America Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Represented Nintendo of America Inc. in a patent case relating to imaging lenses for portable devices.
Open Parking, LLC v. ParkMe, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Successfully defended ParkMe in a patent suit relating to Internet-based parking applications. The district court found the asserted patents to be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and granted ParkMe’s motion to dismiss. The Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Radware v. F5 Networks
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Represented F5 Networks in patent litigation and jury trial relating to network packet routing. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement on one of three patents, and favorable judgment on damages on other patents, all affirmed on appeal.
Transcenic, Inc. v. Google
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Represented Google in patent litigation relating to image navigation functionality. Case resolved immediately before trial.
TransData v. CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
Represented multiple utilities in patent litigation relating to electric meters. Case resolved immediately before trial.