Wayne Stacy, Partner

Wayne Stacy is a partner in the Cooley Litigation department and a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation and Patent Counseling and Prosecution practice groups. Recognized for his expertise on patent law, Mr. Stacy is consistently ranked by Chambers USA as one of the top patent lawyers in the United States. He is also an adjunct professor of patent law at the University of Colorado School of Law and the University of Denver School of Law.

Mr. Stacy's patent litigation practice focuses on electronics and software litigation. He has litigated scores of patent cases—mostly involving software, firmware, microcontrollers, and computer systems. Just recently, he has handled cases involving security software, microcontrollers, flat panel monitors, semiconductor lasers, data compression software, and communication software. He also has significant experience with photovoltaics, thin-film deposition systems, generators, and various types of optical-communication components.

In addition to patent litigation, Mr. Stacy also specializes in assisting emerging and mid-size companies obtain high-value, strategic patents that can be used to increase or protect market share.

By blending his patent prosecution experience, his patent litigation experience and his technical background, Mr. Stacy is in a unique position to help his clients reduce patent infringement risks. In particular, he routinely helps clients modify their software and firmware to minimize patent infringement risks. Mr. Stacy's dual expertise in patent prosecution and patent litigation also provide him with unique insight into the patent reexamination process and its strategic use prior to and during litigation.

He is a frequent speaker on patent litigation and patent prosecution topics and has spoken on topics such as software-patent acquisitions, IP diligence during M&A, inequitable conduct during patent prosecution, legal ethics for patent prosecution, director liability for patent infringement, and efficient patent portfolio development. Mr. Stacy was also an editor for the Intellectual Property column of the Colorado Lawyer and is an organizer for one of Colorado's largest legal education events, the Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property Institute.

Mr. Stacy received his law degree, with high honors, from The George Washington University. While at George Washington, he served on Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. He also served as an extern for the Honorable Judge Rader of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Stacy received his B.S. degree, cum laude, in Computer Engineering from Southern Methodist University.

Representative Cases – Defense

• Finisar v. Oplink Communications (Northern District California) – counsel for Oplink Communications against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit concerning optical transceivers and microcontrollers.
• Mondis v. Chimei-Innolux et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – counsel for Chimei-Innolux in a patent infringement litigation relating to control of displays.
• Centrify v. Quest Software (Northern District of California) – counsel for Quest in a patent infringement litigation against a major competitor in the enterprise-level software security space.
• Finjan v. Webroot et al. (Delaware) – counsel for Webroot in a patent infringement suit related to software security.
• QinetiQ v. Oclaro (Northern District of California) – counsel for Oclaro in a patent infringement suit related to optical components. 
• Klausner Technologies v. Qwest Telecommunications et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Qwest in a patent infringement action involving telecommunications hardware and software.
• Web Telephony v. Qwest Telecommunications et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Qwest in a patent infringement action involving telecommunications hardware and software.
• In the Matter of Certain Tunable Laser Chips (International Trade Commission) – litigation counsel for Bookham, the respondent, in a patent litigation involving tunable lasers.
• Widevine, Inc. v. Verimatrix (Western District of Washington) – counsel for Verimatrix against a major competitor in a patent litigation involving video delivery to mobile devices.
• Widevine, Inc. v. Verimatrix (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Verimatrix, the accused infringer, in a patent litigation involving video delivery security.
• Information Protection and Authentication of Texas, LLC v. Webroot et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Webroot in a patent litigation involving electronic firewalls.
• Bookham, Inc. v. JDS Uniphase (Northern District of California) – litigation counsel for Bookham against a major competitor in a patent litigation involving tunable lasers.
• Interactive Systems Worldwide v. Progressive Gaming International (District of Nevada) – litigation counsel to Progressive Gaming in a patent-infringement litigation involving interactive sports-gaming software.
• Quest Software v. BBS Technologies, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Quest in a patent infringement and computer fraud action against a competitor involving monitoring software.
• Stratos LightWave v. Picolight (Delaware District Court) – litigation counsel to Picolight in a patent-infringement litigation involving vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VSCELS).

Representative Cases – Plaintiff

• Oplink Communications v. Finisar (Eastern District of Texas) – counsel for Oplink Communications against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit involving semiconductor lasers (VCSELS).
• ACQIS v. IBM (Eastern District of Texas) – counsel for ACQIS in a patent infringement action involving blade server technology. Secured trial victory after jury found that the patents were valid and infringed.
• Quest Software v. Centrify (Utah) – counsel for Quest in a patent infringement litigation against a major competitor in the enterprise-level software security space. 
• Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Ameren (Eastern District of Missouri) – litigation counsel for Katz in a patent infringement action involving computer telephony and call-center systems.
• HyperRoll, Inc. v. Hyperion Solutions (Northern District of California) – litigation counsel for HyperRoll in a competitor-on-competitor infringement suit involving database software.
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Nokia Corporation (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent infringement action involving cellular telephony systems and mobile TV applications. 
• International Printer Corp. v. Brother International et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for International Printer in a patent infringement action against twelve manufacturers of networkable multi-function printer and imaging technology. 
• Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Chevron et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Katz in a patent infringement action against nine defendants. The technology involves computer telephony and call-center systems.
• Quest Software v. Witness Systems (Northern District of California) – litigation counsel to Quest Software against a competitor in a software copyright infringement action involving database software. 
• IPLearn v. Plateau Learning Systems (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel to IPLearn in a patent-infringement litigation involving computerized-learning software.
• Positive Technologies v. Fujitsu America et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel to Positive Technologies in a patent-infringement litigation against Fujitsu and others. The technology in this case involves LCD and plasma display technology.
• Bookham, Inc. v. Unaxis Balzers AG (Northern District of California) – litigation counsel to Bookham in a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement brought against Unaxis Balzers. The technology in this case involved color wheels used in light-projection engines.
• Analytical Spectral Devices v. CDEX (District of Colorado) – litigation counsel to Analytical Spectral Devices in a patent-infringement litigation involving hardware and software for validating the identity of pharmaceuticals.
• Applied Films GMBH v. Galileo Vacuum Systems (Northern District of Georgia) – litigation counsel to Applied Films in a patent-infringement litigation against Galileo Vacuum Systems and its U.S. subsidiary. The technology in this case involves web-coating systems.
• Quest Software v. Saint Technologies (Canadian Federal Court) – U.S. litigation counsel to Quest Software and consultant for Canadian litigation involving software copyright issues. The technology in this case involves database-management software.
• Outlast Technologies v. Frisby Technologies (Colorado District Court) (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals) – litigation counsel to Outlast Technologies in a patent-infringement case against Frisby involving phase change materials used to regulate body temperature.
• Picolight v. Honeywell (Delaware District Court) – litigation counsel to Picolight in a patent-infringement litigation involving vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VSCELS).
• Murex Licensing v. Vicinity (Eastern District of Virginia) – litigation counsel to Murex Licensing in patent-infringement litigation involving location and mapping software.

Education

• George Washington University Law School
  JD, with high honors, Order of the Coif
• Southern Methodist University
  BS, Computer Engineering, cum laude

Court Admissions

• All Colorado State Courts
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
• U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
• All Texas State Courts

Admissions

• Colorado
• Registered to practice before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)
• Texas

Memberships

• Colorado Bar Association
• State Bar of Texas