Kirstin L. Stoll-DeBell

IP Litigation

Kirstin’s work primarily revolves around patent and copyright litigation relating to most computer technologies — including for example generative AI, machine learning, software, video games, networking, cybersecurity, distributed systems, semiconductor chips, packages, and processing— and keeping clients informed every step of the way. See notable cases below.

Strategic IP Analysis and Protection

Beyond litigation, Kirstin focuses on strategic IP analysis to support offensive and defensive licensing agreements and managing large patent portfolios. Kirstin co-authored the ABA bestseller Injunctive Relief: Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions, covering a spectrum of issues from pre-filing considerations to appellate relief.

Personal Interests and Fun Facts

Kirstin is an avid golfer, and when she isn’t working, you can find her on the course with family (she looks forward to the day she gets to represent a company in the golf industry). She has had two holes-in-one! She also loves spending time with her two boys, her two (naughty) Cavalier King Charles spaniels, and traveling.

Kirstin was a nationally ranked figure skater in her youth, twice competing in the U.S. Figure Skating Championships in 1987 and 1989. At the height of her career, she landed triple toe loops, triple salchows, and double axels in competition.

Favorite Quotes

• “In order to be irreplaceable, one must always be different.” — Coco Chanel
• “It took me quite a long time to develop a voice, and now that I have it, I am not going to be silent.” — Madeline Albright
• “Leadership is not about being in charge. It’s about taking care of those in your charge.” — Simon Sinek
• “Beauty fades, dumb is forever.” — Judge Judy

Notable IP Litigation Cases

• Consolidated Generative AI Copyright Cases (S.D.N.Y.): Leading team to help defend Microsoft in multiple cases against Microsoft & OpenAI, which include class action cases filed by book authors and individual actions filed by newspapers, including The New York Times. These cases involve cutting-edge technology and novel copyright issues, including whether the fair use defense applies to training large language models based on information publicly available on the Internet so that downstream AI products understand language.
• Softex v. Dell & HP: Lead litigator for defendants in patent cases accusing Windows technology in laptops. Both cases were dismissed after we filed a successful IPR petition for Microsoft.
• Hafeman v. LG Electronics: Lead litigator for LG in a patent infringement case based on Windows technology. Secured a rare full-defense verdict in WDTX (Waco) with the jury finding all claims not infringed and invalid. WDTX denied plaintiff’s post-trial motions. Appeal is pending.
• Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation v. Hafeman (PTAB): Representing Microsoft in six IPR petitions, two per patent, where PTAB issued a Final Written Decision that all claims of all patents were not patentable. Ms. Hafeman’s appeal of the FWDs is pending.
• Parus Holdings v. Microsoft (WDTX): Lead litigator in a patent case involving Cortana, Bing, Surface and Windows. Case settled after a successful motion to transfer venue to WDWash.
• Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Arrow Partnership, LLC (D. Colo.): Defended Arrow Partnership against claim of trademark infringement. Won motion for attorneys’ fees ($450,000) after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint. First award of attorneys’ fees under the Octane Fitness standard for a trademark case in the Tenth Circuit.
• ePlus v. Lawson Software (E.D. Va.): Represented Lawson in this patent infringement lawsuit involving computer software for e-procurement. Acted as second chair during a three-week jury trial in Richmond, Virginia. Successfully precluded plaintiff from pursuing its more than $30 million damages claim at trial through a Daubert motion and a Rule 37 sanctions motion. The jury found the core software modules did not infringe any claim, one add-on module infringed only one claim, and the remaining add-on module infringed only five of 12 asserted claims. All of the remaining claims were subsequently invalidated on appeal.
• Prince Lionheart v. Halo Innovations (D. Colo.): Represented Halo in this trademark infringement lawsuit involving baby products. The case settled after Halo won a motion to compel Prince Lionheart's privileged documents relating to Halo's trademark fraud counterclaim.
• Black & Decker v. Bosch, Appeal Dkt. No. 2007-1243 (Fed. Cir.): Represented Bosch in this appeal of a jury verdict finding infringement of patents relating to a combination radio/battery charger. The Federal Circuit vacated the infringement verdict and damages award because the district court erred in construing the claims.
• Black & Decker v. Bosch, Civil Action No. 04 C 7955 (N.D. Ill.): Represented Bosch in this patent infringement lawsuit. Successfully precluded from trial Black & Decker's claims against Bosch's current accused product. Obtained a jury verdict invalidating two of the four independent claims and a damages award for the other claims that was less than a third of the damages sought.
• Constar v. Ball, Civil Action No. 05-C-0669-C (W.D. Wis.): Represented Ball in a patent infringement action relating to oxygen scavenging polymer compositions. Achieved settlement shortly after Ball filed its motion for summary judgment of patent invalidity.
• Motorola and Freescale v. Micron, Civil Action No. A 04 CA 007 LY (W.D. Tex) and Micron v. Motorola, Civil Action No. 04 C 0204 S (W.D. Wis.): Represented Motorola in this patent infringement lawsuit involving 37 patents. Successfully moved to transfer Micron's later filed lawsuit from the W.D. Wisconsin to be consolidated with Motorola's first filed lawsuit in the W.D. Texas. Case settled after we successfully moved to have the discovery divided into phases limited to six patents per phase.
• Altira Group v. Philip Morris Companies, Civil Action No. 01-K-2344 (D. Colo.): Represented Altira Group in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting Philip Morris' new name "ALTRIA" would create reverse confusion. Although the court denied our motion for a preliminary injunction, primarily because Philip Morris had not yet changed its name, we made new law on reverse confusion in the Tenth Circuit. The case settled after the district court refused to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with trial on the merits and indicated that it would stay discovery and trial until Philip Morris changed its name.
• Smash v. New England Pottery Company, Civil Action No. 01-601 (D. Minn.): Prevailed on a motion to preliminarily enjoin NEPCO from selling its "Starlight Sphere" Christmas ornaments because they infringed Smash's patent.