|
With a background in computer science, Mr. Swenson's practice focuses on patent litigation. Mr. Swenson's trial experience includes patent-related matters in district courts around the country, the ITC, FTC, and trial-format arbitrations covering myriad technologies from microchips, routers, Internet browsers, electronic commodity futures trading platforms, and aircraft anti-collision systems, to home faucet designs, unleaded gasoline formulations, and explosion-proof electric paint robots for use on automotive assembly lines.
A former judicial clerk for Judges Rich and Newman at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, he also regularly handles patent appeals before the court. Most recently, Mr. Swenson argued on appeal and won reversal of an adverse claim construction and non-infringement summary judgment in Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., ___ F.3d. ___ (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Other notable recent appellate successes include Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. 2010); Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elec. N.V., et al., (Fed. Cir. 2009); Andersen Corp. v. Pella Corp., et al., 300 Fed.Appx. 893 (Fed. Cir. 2008); and, General Mills, Inc. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 495 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007). He also wrote the amici curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court for IP Advocate, the IEEE, and the American Association of University Professors in Stanford v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., ___ U.S. ___ (2011).
Mr. Swenson received his J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School, his M.A. in Pubic Affairs from the University of Minnesota, and his B.A. in Computer Science from Boston College. He is admitted to practice in Illinois; Minnesota; District of Columbia; U.S. District Court, Minnesota; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin; U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit; and, the U.S. Supreme Court.
* Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation in which we practice and does not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.
| 
