Robert T. Haslam joined the firm in 1976 and has been devoted to an intellectual property and technology-based litigation practice since joining the Silicon Valley office in 1987.

Experience

Mr. Haslam's practice has emphasized a trial practice involving patent and trade secret litigation and other related high-technology disputes. He has represented clients in patent and trade secret litigation involving a range of arts and practices, including semiconductor products and processes, cryptography, GPS and cellular technology, electronic circuits, microprocessors and software products, and medical devices and other life science products. He has tried cases in both federal and state court. In addition, Mr. Haslam advises clients on strategies relating to intellectual property matters.

He was named by The Daily Journal in Feburary, 2003 as one of the "brain trust of 25 lawyers who comprise the state's best and brightest" intellectual property lawyers in California. In November, 2003 The Recorder, an American Lawyer publication, named Mr. Haslam as one of the top two "go to" patent litigators in Northern California.  Mr. Haslam is listed in Chambers USA 2004-2006 for his recognized skill in the intellectual property litigation field.

Representative Engagements

• Agere Systems, Inc. v. Atmel Corp. Heller Ehrman won a major victory in March, 2005 on behalf of long-time client Atmel in a Philadelphia federal court jury trial in Agere v. Atmel. Agere claimed that Atmel infringed four semiconductor patents, including what it touted as its key tungsten patents. Agere sought damages of approximately $200 million as well as enhancement for claimed willful infringement. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in Atmel's favor, invalidating the tungsten patents, and finding the fourth not infringed as well as invalid, and awarding Agere zero in damages.
• MCI, et al v. AT&T Corp., 97-CV-4453 (E.D. Penn.). The firm represents MCI in this case involving interactive telephone and computer telephony services.
• Stambler v. First Data Corporation (D. Del.) No. 01-0065. The firm represents First Data Corporation in patent infringement litigation relating to patents asserted against the issuance of digital certificates and secure payment systems enabling e-commerce transactions.
• In the Matter of Certain Programmable Logic Devices and Products Containing Same, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-453. The firm represents Altera in this investigation involving patents concerning programmable logic devices.
• Altiris v. Symantec Corporation, 2:99CV-1007ST (C.D. Utah). The firm represents Symantec in patent infringement litigation relating to a patent claiming functionality whereby a system administrator of a network can interrupt the normal boot process and, for example, remotely update computers on the network.
• Centillion Data Systems Inc. v. MCI WorldCom Inc., et al., IP98-C-1754 (S.D. Ind.). The firm represents MCI WorldCom in this case involving two billing system software patents.
• RSA Data Security, Inc. v. Network Associates, Inc. and Pretty Good Privacy, Inc., 97-03755 MHP (N.D. Cal.). The firm represents RSA in this case involving public key encryption technology.
• ECI Telecom Ltd. v. Amati Communications Corporation, Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, No. CV 775377. The firm represents Amati, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Texas Instruments, in this action involving technology relating to high-speed modems and to assign certain intellectual property rights relating to the technology developed during the course of the parties’ contractual relationship.
• RSA Data Security, Inc. v. Cylink Corporation, C-96-20094 SW (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented RSA in litigation involving patent infringement and related claims involving public key and related encryption software technology that has become central to electronic commerce over the Internet.
• In the Matter of Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, etc., Investigation No. 337-TA-395 (ITC). The firm represented Atmel as complainant in an unfair trade practice claim relating to patents on EEPROM and Flash circuits and memory cell designs. The respondents are Sanyo, Macronix and Winbond.
• Advanced Micro Devices v. Atmel Corporation, C-88-20528-WAI (N.D. Cal.); Atmel v. AMD, C-90-20013-TEH (N.D. Cal.); Seeq Technology v. Atmel, C-88-20600-RMW (N.D. Cal.); Atmel v. Seeq Technology, C-90-20012-WAI (N.D. Cal.); Intel Corporation v. Hyundai Electronics, et al, C-87-20534-WAI (N.D. Cal.); In the Matter of Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories, etc., Investigation No. 337-TA-276 (ITC). The cases related to EPROMS, EEPROMS, and programmable logic devices (PLDs) and logic transition circuits. The firm acted as trial counsel in all but the Intel case, in which we acted as co-counsel on certain issues. In addition to the district court litigation, Intel also commenced parallel ITC proceedings seeking an exclusion order. The firm acted as co-counsel on issues arising after entry of an exclusion and cease and desist order.
• Atmel Corporation v. SST, C-96-00039 SC (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Atmel in this patent infringement action. The patents relate to circuits and memory cell designs for flash memory and EEPROMs.
• General Instruments, Inc. v. Atmel Corporation, C-88-5678 (S.D.N.Y.); Atmel Corporation v. General Instruments, Inc., C-88-7630 (S.D.N.Y.). The firm represented Atmel in litigation concerning disputes arising out of a development agreement with General Instruments. The issues related to EPROM and EEPROM processes and circuit design.
• Informix Software, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, No. 9701-00568 (Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon). The firm represented Informix in litigation involving trade secrets, unfair competition and related claims. The case arose out of the hiring by Oracle of 13 engineers from Informix’s Portland development lab.
• Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix Incorporated, et al., C-95-1808 CW (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Identix in this patent infringement action. The patent relates to a method of generating from an optical imaging system, a digital representation of fingerprints for law enforcement and related fields.
• Intel Corp. v. Chips and Technologies, Inc., Texas Instruments, C-92-20111-JW (N.D. Cal.), C-92-20112-JW (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Texas Instruments and Chips in this patent infringement action brought by Intel. Intel sought preliminary and permanent relief to stop Chips from manufacturing and selling its 386-compatible microprocessor and its 387-compatible math co-processor.
• Raychem v. Thomas & Betts, C-91-20788-RMW, C-92-20549-RMW (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Raychem in this patent infringement action. The three patents in suit involved technology basic to a line of Raychem's telecommunications products.  The firm represented Raychem in two other cases involving competitors marketing similar products. Raychem v. Communications Technology Corporation, C-92-04320-EFL (N.D. Cal.); Raychem v. PSI Telecommunications, Inc., C-93-20920-RPA (N.D. Cal.).
• Cygnus Therapeutics Systems v. ALZA Corporation, 92 F. 3d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The firm represented ALZA in litigation involving claims that its patent on a transdermal fentanyl patch was unenforceable and invalid and that it had committed antitrust violations in enforcing that patent.
• Biogenex Laboratories v. Biotek Solutions, Inc., C-95-0810 TEH (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Biotek in this patent infringement action. The patent relates to the field of immunohistology or immunohistochemistry, and particularly to a claimed method of antigen retrieval in formalin fixed tissue.
• U.S. Surgical v. Origin Medsystems, Inc., 27 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1526 (N.D. Cal. 1993). The firm represented Origin Medsystems (now a part of Guidant) in this patent infringement and trade secret action. The case involved a patent on a laporoscopic medical instrument, a retracting tip trocar.
• In the Matter of Eastman Kodak v. Cetus Corporation, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., AAA Arbitration. The firm represented Cetus and Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. in connection with a dispute relating to rights to the technology pioneered by Cetus in the field of amplification of nucleic acid sequences (commonly referred to as PCR technology).
• Raychem v. Judd Wire, C-95-4487 SI (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Raychem in this patent infringement action relating to technology for insulating layers for wire used in aircraft.
• James A. Patterson v. Advanced Polymer Systems, Inc., et al, C-93-20920 JW-PVT (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Advance Polymer Systems and other individual defendants in an action seeking, inter alia, to invalidate four APS patents. The patents related generally to the use of a certain type of porous polymeric substrate for, among other things, the timed-release delivery of pharmaceuticals or cosmetics.
• Andrews Corporation v. United, C-94-372C (Court of Claims). The firm represented Technology for Communications International (“TCI”) as a third party in patent infringement litigation brought by Andrews against the United States. The case involved high frequency antennae sold by TCI to the government for military applications.
• Decision Data Holdings, Ltd., et al v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, et al, C-91-0435 FMS (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Texas Instruments  ("TI") with respect to trade secret and copyright claims arising out of the development by Texas Instruments of an interpreter program, which permits software developed to run on Qantel hardware to run in a UNIX environment on a Texas Instruments platform.
• Tencor Instruments v. Eastman Technology, Inc., et al., C-89-20430-WAI (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Tencor Instruments in a patent infringement suit against Eastman Technology, a subsidiary of Eastman-Kodak. The subject matter of the patent in suit is a wafer inspection system, which scans processed semiconductor wafers for surface imperfections.
• UNIX Systems Laboratories v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc., et al., 27 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1721 (N.J. Dist. 1993). The firm represented BSDI in this copyright and trade secret action. The action involved claims that BSDI's UNIX operating system violated USL's operating system copyright, and that BSDI misappropriated USL's alleged trade secrets in its source code.
• General Instruments, Inc. v. Atmel Corporation, C-88-5678 (S.D.N.Y.); Atmel Corporation v. General Instruments, Inc., C-88-7630 (S.D.N.Y.). The firm represented Atmel in litigation concerning disputes arising out of a development agreement with General Instruments. The issues related to EPROM and EEPROM processes and circuit design.
• Comora v. Thoratec Laboratories Corporation, C-92-0182-SBA (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Thoratec in this patent infringement action involving an artificial heart device.

State Court Commercial Litigation

• Nafeh v. Marr, et al; Poonja v. Portfolio Technologies, Inc., et al., Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, CV-739648. This case involved claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, fraudulent conveyance and other state law claims. The firm represented a director and investor in the company whose business ultimately failed, and who also invested in defendant Portfolio. Portfolio was started by former employees of the failed company.
• Caudle, et al v. Everex Systems, et al, Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, CV-699012. The firm represented Everex Systems and other defendants with respect to claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, interference and other state law claims arising out of alleged exclusive distributorship agreement.
• Maxim v. Linear Technology, Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, CV-756186. We represented Maxim in this case involving a trade secret misappropriation claim.
• Nehemiah v. Raychem, et al, Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, CV-759401. The firm represented Raychem and its employees and former employees in this action for breach of contract, fraud, and misappropriation claims.
• Sullivan & Associates, et al v. Raychem, et al, Superior Court, County of San Mateo, CV-387993. We represented Raychem against claims for breach of contract relating to an agreement to conduct an IP portfolio audit.
• McNamara & Peepe Corporation, et al v. Bank of America, C-85-463 (Superior Court, County of Del Norte); Eleanor McNamara, et al v. Bank of America, C-84-275 (Superior Court, County of Del Norte); William Peepe, et al v. Bank of America, C-84-273 (Superior Court, County of Del Norte). On behalf of Bank of America, defended a lender liability case seeking damages in excess of $60 million.
• In re Consolidated Asbestos Insurance Coverage Cases, 20 Cal. App. 4th 296 (1993), on remand, (remand sub. nom.) Armstrong World Indus. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 45 Cal. App. 4th 1 (1996). The firm represented Johns-Manville ("J-M") in an insurance coverage dispute relating to asbestos bodily injury claims. Acted as trial counsel for one-year Phase III trial which resulted in obtaining comprehensive coverage for J-M. J-M ultimately settled for over $700 million in recovery or guaranteed coverage. We were subsequently specially retained by another plaintiff for Phase V property damage trial.