Why Conley Rose?

Share our commitment to diversity by hiring a team of the brighest and most diverse IP professionals you’ll find.

• In total, over 65% of our firm’s professionals (shareholders, all other lawyers, all patent agents and technical advisors and all other professionals) are underrepresented minorities*.

* Underrepresented minorities as defined by gender, race/ethnicity, orientation, identity, disability, and military/veteran status of all firm full-time equivalents as of January 2022.

• 40% of all new lawyers, patent agents, and technical advisors hired by Conley Rose, P.C. in the past three years are underrepresented minorities (as of January 2022).
• 50% of the new shareholders elected in the 2020‒2021 class are underrepresented minorities.
• For over four years, the firm has worked closely with the Houston Bar Association’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program and has consistently hired minority summer law clerks through the program. The firm has invited several of them back for a second summer clerkship and is pleased to have successfully hired a full-time lawyer from this program.

Conley Rose, P.C, is committed to increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) beyond just talk alone

More About DEI Results & Actions at Conley Rose, P.C. can be found here.

We understand your technology, and we understand your challenges.

• Nearly 30% of our IP practitioners have advanced technical degrees
• Our firm carries over 500 years of total IP experience
• We have a diverse client base that includes over a dozen Fortune 500 clients
• We have prepared and filed nearly 25,000 patent applications filed since 1991
• We have prepared approximately 1,500 U.S. patent applications on average per year over the last 5 years
• We have coordinated the filing of about 500 foreign patent applications on average per year over the last 5 years
• We have filed nearly 15,000 trademark applications since 1991
• We maintain an active portfolio of over 3,000 trademark applications and registrations worldwide

Our work speaks for itself.

• A nearly 80% patent application allowance rate
• A greater-than-80% trademark application allowance rate
• A proven track record of defeating patent trolls and other non-practicing entities
  • Ericsson, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, in which we represented petitioner Ericsson in filing six petitions for IPR challenging claims in four patents asserted in a parallel district court litigation. We successfully invalidated all asserted claims in three of the four patents, and IV dismissed the fourth patent from the litigation with prejudice.
  • UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., in which we represented UltimatePointer, which was characterized by Nintendo as an NPE, in a patent infringement lawsuit against Nintendo in district court and the Federal Circuit. On appeal, the court affirmed lower court findings of non-infringement but reversed findings of invalidity.
  • Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cameron Int’l Corp., in which we represented defendant Cameron against an NPE that acquired Duhn Oil during litigation. The court invalidated all asserted claims and, on appeal, we persuaded the court to reverse a preliminary injunction against our client.
  • Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Adorpix LLC et al., relating to shipment tracking software, in which we obtained a strategic early venue transfer which helped prompt a dismissal without any payment to plaintiff.
  • MacroSolve, Inc. v. Antenna Software, Inc., et al., relating to data management systems, in which we settled favorably for our client.
  • Emtel, Inc. v. LipidLabs, Inc. et al., relating to videoconferencing for telemedicine, in which we obtained a favorable, early summary judgment.
  • eDekka LLC v. Water Filters Direct LLC, relating to online shopping, in which we won summary judgment against plaintiff on Section 101 grounds and further obtained an attorney’s fee award against plaintiff based on an exceptional case finding.
  • Lunareye, Inc. v. Gordon Howard Assoc., Inc., relating to GPS tracking devices, in which we obtained the first sanction award against an NPE attorney in the Eastern District of Texas for violating a protective order.
  • One Shot Shooting Products, LLC v. Hunter’s Specialties, Inc., et al., in which we represented defendants against design patent infringement allegations. The case was a non-suit (we obtained dismissal of suit with prejudice before the answer due date).
  • Graham Springs LLC v. Zazzle Inc. et al., in which we represented defendant against NPE. The case was a non-suit (NPE dropped the case before answer was due).
• IP attorneys from start to finish: A 100% success rate when litigating patents we prepared and prosecuted
  • National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Mud King Products, L.L.C., in which we asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,960,700. The case settled favorably.
  • Special Happy, Ltd. v. Lincoln Imports, Ltd., Inc., et al., in which we asserted U.S. Patent No. RE36,640 in a declaratory judgment action. The court found the patent infringed and entered judgment for both damages and a permanent injunction.
  • Web Devices, LLC v. Ergodyne Corp., in which we asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,776,317. The case settled favorably.
  • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Electronic Custom Distributors, Inc., in which Arlington Industries brought a declaratory judgment action against our client over U.S. Patent No. 7,654,405. The case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
  • Kucala Ent. Ltd. v. Auto Wax Co. Inc., in which Kucala brought a declaratory judgment action regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,727,993. The court found that Kucala willfully, intentionally, and in bad faith infringed the patent. The court entered a permanent injunction against Kucala and ordered damages exceeding $4.1 million plus interest.
  • Willis Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Lincoln Imports Ltd., Inc., et al., in which Willis brought a declaratory judgment against our client for U.S. Patent No. RE36,640, which was prosecuted by our firm. The case settled favorably.
  • OnSite Technology L.L.C. v. DuraTherm Inc., et al., in which our client DuraTherm asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,523,060 in a counterclaim. The jury awarded our client over $2.1 million in lost profits and royalties. Post-trial, the court trebled the damages amount on willfulness grounds. The court also issued a permanent injunction.
  • Lincoln Imports Ltd. Inc. v. Santa’s Best Craft, Ltd. et al., in which our client asserted U.S. Patent No. RE36,640 against multiple defendants. The case settled favorably.