Brian A. Verbus

Partner Intellectual Property

Chicago +1 312 862 3775

Brian A. Verbus

Overview

Brian Verbus is an intellectual property litigation partner in the Chicago office of Kirkland & Ellis. His practice involves a range of technologies including electronics, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, mechanical and industrial equipment, and packaging coatings. Brian has experience in all phases of patent litigation, including claim construction, fact and expert discovery, summary judgment, trial in federal district courts, and appeals to the Federal Circuit. 

Brian also represents clients in Lanham Act false advertising and trademark disputes throughout the litigation process, from preliminary injunction through trial. With respect to advertising disputes, Brian has also represented clients in proceedings before the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (NAD).

Patent Litigation

  • Intellectual Ventures II v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 13-cv-3777 (S.D.N.Y.); Intellectual Ventures II v. Citibank, N.A., 14-cv-4638 (S.D.N.Y.), Appeal No. 17-2429 (Fed. Cir.) — Representing large banks in multi-patent infringement litigation involving online banking and security technology. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on the sole remaining patent and the Federal Circuit affirmed.

  • Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 1:13-cv-765 (S.D. Ind.) — Represented Hill-Rom in patent infringement dispute against Stryker Corporation regarding hospital beds.

  • Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 16-2199 (Fed. Cir.) — Represented Hill-Rom in appeal from decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating certain of Hill-Rom’s patent claims. The Federal Circuit reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded for further proceedings.

  • AAMP of Florida Inc. v. Automotive Data Solutions, 8:13-cv-2019 (M.D. Fla.) — Represented AAMP in patent infringement lawsuit against Automotive Data Solutions regarding aftermarket vehicle stereo equipment. Obtained summary judgment of infringement.

  • RTC Industries, Inc. v. Fasteners For Retail, Inc., Nos. 1:17-cv-3595, 1:18-cv-00861, 1:18-cv-02782 (N.D. Ill.) — Represented Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff in patent infringement litigation regarding self-facing systems.

  • In the Matter of Certain Soft Projectile Launching Devices, Components Thereof, Ammunition, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1325 (ITC) — Represented Respondent manufacturer in patent infringement investigation.

  • In the Matter of Certain Protective Case for Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-955 (ITC) — Represented Respondent manufacturer in patent infringement investigation.

False Advertising Litigation

  • Dyson, Inc. v. SharkNinja Operating LLC and SharkNinja Sales Co. (N.D. Ill.) — Representing Dyson, Inc. in false advertising litigation with SharkNinja Operating LLC related to SharkNinja’s carpet cleaning superiority advertising claims. Obtained jury verdict finding SharkNinja liable for willful false advertising under the Lanham Act.

  • Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. Dyson, Inc. (D. Mass.) — Represented defendant/counterclaimant Dyson in false advertising action regarding suction performance and carpet cleaning superiority claims.

  • Represented a variety of clients in confidential proceedings before the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (NAD).

Trademark Litigation

  • The Kroger Co. v. Lidl US, LLC, 3:17-cv-480 (E.D. Va.) — Represented Lidl and successfully defeated preliminary injunction sought by Kroger for alleged trademark infringement and dilution.

PILI Fellow, Loyola Federal Income Tax Clinic, Chicago, 2013

Summer Associate, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, 2012

Summer Associate, Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis, 2011

More

Thought Leadership

Publications 

Shifting Sands of Claim Construction at the PTAB, THE PATENT LAW. 25–28 (Annual 2018–2019).

Federal Circuit Approval (review of the Federal Circuit’s Novartis AG v. Noven Pharms. Inc. decision), THE PATENT LAW. 39–41 (July–Aug. 2017).

Shipping Components Abroad: U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Infringement Based on Foreign Supply Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), THE PATENT LAW. 47–49 (Mar.–Apr. 2017).

Two Apples Do Not Ensure Two Bites: PTAB’s Discretion on Institution, THE PATENT LAW. 15-17 (Nov.-Dec. 2016).

From Obscurity to Ubiquity (A Review of 28 U.S.C. § 1782), INTELLECTUAL PROP. MAGAZINE 47-50 (July-Aug. 2016).

A Bridge Too Far? Limits in PTAB Trials, THE PATENT LAW. 11–14 (Jan.–Feb. 2016).

Supplemental Examination – Where’s the Love?, INTELLECTUAL PROP. MAGAZINE 74–75 (Nov. 2015).

Good Faith No Longer A Defense to Inducement (a review of the Supreme Court’s decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.), INTELLECTUAL PROP. MAGAZINE 74–75 (July-Aug. 2015).

Seminars 

Federal Circuit’s View on AIA Post-Grant Reviews, Law & Technology Seminar (May 18, 2016).

Presentations

Proper Venue Post-TC Heartland, IL CLE Presentation (September 25, 2017).

Recognition

Represented team USA in the Triathlon World Championships in Hamburg, Germany, 6th place, 2007

Credentials

Admissions & Qualifications

  • 2013, Illinois
  • Registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Courts

  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Education

  • Indiana University Maurer School of LawJ.D.magna cum laude2013

    Order of the Coif

    Articles Editor, Indiana Law Journal

  • Saint Louis UniversityB.S., Aerospace Engineeringsumma cum laude2010
    Led senior design team in work on the COPPER small satellite, which launched in 2013