Recognized by Chambers USA 2013 as a leading individual for Intellectual Property.
Listed in The Best Lawyers in America® 2014, an honor based on an exhaustive peer-review process.
Steven M. Auvil
Steve Auvil leads the Squire Sanders Intellectual Property & Technology Practice Group’s litigation practice in the US, and his practice is focused on litigation of intellectual property (IP) disputes. As an engineer and patent lawyer, he has been exposed to a wide variety of technologies including power electronics, communication systems, complex mechanical systems and software. Steve has been listed in Chambers USA Leading Lawyers
since 2007, The Best Lawyers in America
since 2006 and Ohio Super Lawyers
In nearly 20 years of practicing law, Steve has served as lead trial counsel and successfully represented clients in numerous patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark/trade dress cases in federal district courts throughout the US. He has also argued several patent-related appeals before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition, he has handled a significant number of disputes before US administrative agencies, including 337 actions before the US International Trade Commission and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board. Finally, Steve has represented clients in IP-related disputes before arbitration tribunals.
While Steve’s practice focus is in litigation, he has considerable non-litigation experience, including counseling clients on IP matters, preparing and prosecuting patent applications, and negotiating agreements that involve IP.
Steve is an active member in a number of professional organizations, including the American Bar Association, American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), Cleveland Intellectual Property Law Association (CIPLA) and Federal Circuit Bar Association. He served as president of CIPLA during 2009-2010 and has held leadership positions in AIPLA since 2009.
Steve is a frequent speaker on IP law topics, and has spoken to IP organizations in Boston, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit and Silicon Valley on matters ranging from patent reform to reducing the cost of patent litigation.
Steve is a former member of the William K. Thomas Inn of Court, the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Visiting Committee and the Board of Trustees of Young Audiences of Greater Cleveland. For several years he taught patent law and practice as an adjunct faculty member of the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University.
- Successfully defended Technical Consumer Products, Inc. (TCP) in a section 337 unfair imports dispute before the USITC. Client was accused of infringing a patent relating to dimming circuits for CFLs.
- Successfully defended a client in arbitration of a patent license dispute. After a seven-day hearing, the panel of arbitrators found for our client under the doctrine of frustration of purpose, enabling the client to avoid payment of more than US$100 million in royalty payments.
- Led the successful defense of Alamo Group in a patent infringement case relating to hydraulic control systems. The plaintiff ultimately abandoned all of its infringement claims at the close of discovery. We moved for the award of attorneys’ fees under the exceptional case standards of 35 USC §285, which the district court granted. An appeal of that order is pending before the Federal Circuit.
- Successfully defended Eaton Corporation in a patent infringement action in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff claimed infringement of more than 500 patent claims of 14 patents, and sought an injunction and more than US$50 million in damages. Eaton filed an early motion for summary judgment. After the court held that Eaton had met its burden on nine of the 14 patents in an order that also cast doubt on the validity of the remaining patents, the parties reached a settlement.
- Led the successful defense of Fitness Quest in a case involving claims of patent infringement, breach of contract and unjust enrichment relating to fitness and rehabilitation equipment. Plaintiff demanded more than US$30 million in settlement. The team secured summary judgment from the district court on all claims and the Federal Circuit affirmed on substantially on all grounds. The plaintiff never obtained any relief against our client.
New York University, LL.M., Trade Regulation, 1994Cleveland State University, J.D., summa cum laude, valedictorian, editor, Law Review, 1993The Ohio State University, B.S.M.E., 1988
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Ct. of App., Federal Circuit
U.S. Ct. of App., Sixth Circuit
U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. of Ohio
U.S. Dist. Ct., S. Dist. of Ohio
U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. of Illinois
U.S. Dist. Ct., E. Dist. of Texas