Ed Rice is a trial and appellate lawyer who, since 1988, has focused primarily on patent cases and other technology disputes.  After clerking for a federal trial judge, he joined the Department of Justice where in 1996 he won his first patent trial as the sole attorney for the government. Since then, he has first-chaired and won trials in every patent litigation venue in the country: federal district courts, the International Trade Commission, and the Court of Federal Claims.  Ed launched his appellate career in 1992, when he won a difficult en banc Federal Circuit argument in a trade secret case. Over his career, Ed has handled a wide range of patented technologies—from integrated circuits to pharmaceuticals, from internet business methods to anti-missile systems, and just about everything in between. Ed also has successfully represented clients on trademark and copyright matters.  For example, he represented several well-known Hollywood figures in a copyright jury trial involving a blockbuster movie.

Education

• J.D., University of Michigan School of Law (1988)
• A.B., English (Honors), University of Michigan (1983)

Prior Associations

• Partner, Loeb & Loeb, LLP
• Partner, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
• Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, D.C.)
• Law Clerk, Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• Associate, Keck Mahin & Cate

Bar admissions

• State Bar: Illinois, Missouri
• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Trial Bar)
• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
• U.S. Court of Federal Claims
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Ed Rice has handled more than a hundred patent and high-tech cases since he began his law career in 1988.  He has won cases for both plaintiffs and defendants on a wide range of technologies.  His notable trials and appeals include:

International Trade Commission

• In re: Display Controllers with Upscaling Functionality and Products Containing Same (Case No. 337-TA-481) - Ed was lead counsel for a Taiwanese chip design company in a two-week trial involving display controller chips for LCD flat-panel monitors. Ed’s team won the initial trial on non-infringement grounds. In his decision, the judge quoted extensively from Ed’s cross-examination of the opponent’s expert witness, and concluded that the expert was not credible.  When the Commission later reversed the trial judge’s decision, Ed still found a way to win. His team limited the remedy to an obsolete product line, and his client was allowed to continue importing all of its key products.

• In re: Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, and Flash Micro-controller Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing Same (Case No. 337-TA-395) - Ed represented a Taiwanese memory chip manufacturer in a three-week bench trial. His client and the other respondents won at trial on inventorship and inequitable conduct defenses. In his decision, the judge quoted from Ed’s cross-examination, finding that a key witness lacked credibility. Although the trial judge later was reversed, Ed won a non-infringement decision for his client on remand. (The other three respondents all lost at the remand proceeding and were subject to exclusion orders).

District Court

• Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-1017 (S.D. Ind.), Appeal No. 2010-1005, 2010-1033 (Fed. Cir.) - Ed represented a large generic pharmaceutical company as lead trial counsel in a three-week “Hatch-Waxman” bench trial. The trial, which was held in the branded company’s home court, addressed three families of patents for a popular osteoporosis drug. Ed obtained a “split-decision” that invalidated the third patent family and that allows his client to market its generic product more than three years earlier than it otherwise could have.

• Dentsply Int’l Inc. v. Hu-Friedy Mfg. Co., Inc., Case No. 1:04-CV-0348 (M.D. Pa.), Appeal No. 05-1612 (Fed. Cir.) - Ed was lead trial counsel for a dental instrument manufacturer in a patent infringement bench trial in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. He was hired shortly before trial, when the parties were still briefing dispositive motions. He re-tooled the client’s non-infringement argument and won a defense judgment at trial. He then argued and won the appeal, which affirmed the non-infringement ruling.

Court of Federal Claims

• Lariscey v. United States, Appeal No. 90-5129 (Fed. Cir.) - In his very first Justice Department assignment, Ed won an en banc Federal Circuit argument in a trade secret case over a Kevlar cutting device. The plaintiff, a federal prison inmate, had alleged that the prison factory—which manufactured Kevlar helmets for Operation Desert Storm—had stolen his trade secret for a cutting device used in the manufacturing process. When the government won the case on a preliminary motion at the Court of Federal Claims, a high-profile Washington firm took the plaintiff’s case pro bono and appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed, entered judgment against the government and remanded the case for a damage trial. Then Ed was assigned to the case. After spotting a critical error in the appellate decision, he convinced the DOJ hierarchy to let him file a rehearing petition. His petition persuaded the Federal Circuit to re-hear the case en banc. Ed then argued and won the en banc rehearing.

• MDS Associates v. United States, Case No. 93-429 (Ct. Fed. Cl.) - Ed’s first DOJ trial involved advanced command and control systems used on Navy and Coast Guard ships. These systems use powerful computers and radars to perform many ship functions, including weapons targeting, navigation and collision avoidance. The plaintiffs alleged that the collision avoidance module infringed their collision avoidance patent. Ed tried the case solo and won a non-infringement judgment. The judge praised Ed’s expert witness and, quoting from Ed’s cross-examinations, found that the plaintiffs’ witnesses were not credible. 37 Fed. Cl. 611, 620-621 (1997). The judge concluded that Ed “made out a case of non-infringement that plaintiffs could not rebut, although plaintiffs were charged with the burden of proving infringement in the first place.” Id. at 624.

Awards

 

• Ed and Marina are exceptional at thinking through tough issues and zeroing in on a winning litigation strategy. As importantly, they have the litigation experience and skills to put their plan into action. Whether they are crafting a killer brief or performing a dynamic cross-examination, they know how to win.

• I saw Ed Rice in action some years ago (before I joined MIPS) in a complicated, multi-party ITC trial in which I was outside counsel for another party. Ed’s trial skills stood out at every point, from case preparation and management to presentation and (more importantly) trial presence. Though I've seen many lawyers in action since, Ed is the lawyer I personally would choose for any must-win case.

• For more than 6 years, I have trusted Ed and Marina to protect my patented technology and keep infringers away. They are efficient and effective; they get the job done with minimum cost.

• I have admired and learned from Ed Rice and James Hopenfeld since the early 1990s when I worked with them at the U.S. Department of Justice. Ed and James are two of the smartest, hardest working, and most thoughtful attorneys I know. Both have a deep knowledge of and passion for the intricacies and strategies of patent law and litigation, which is evidenced by their superb written and oral advocacy. I applaud their innovative strategies for efficiently staffing patent cases to achieve maximum success for their clients at a reasonable cost.

• Ed is my trusted counsel and advisor on IP issues. He simplifies complex issues in a way that makes it easy for me to understand my options and to feel confident in my corresponding business decisions.

• Ed is a brilliant attorney and an extremely talented litigator. His robust knowledge of patent law combined with decades of trial and litigation experience make him a formidable presence in the patent litigation arena. There is no one I would rather try a case with.