Henrik D. Parker

Of Counsel

Philadelphia
T +1.215.564.8911
F +1.215.568.3439

"a gift for analyzing extremely complex technical fact patterns, combined with a persuasive narrative style when presenting in court."

— IAM 1000 - The World's Leading Patent Practitioners 2014

Overview

Rik Parker has focused his career on intellectual property litigation in all of its manifestations and has a strong record of success. His chemical engineering background and ability to analyze complex issues to identify and exploit critical tipping points while coherently organizing persuasive legal arguments have enabled him to lead many successful litigation teams in district courts, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and the International Trade Commission (ITC). Rik's experience spans technology areas ranging from hard-core chemical engineering to lasers/laser drivers, medical devices, nanotechnology and the use of the internet and/or software for mapping, computer telephony integration, and internet connection services. Representing patentees, in one instance, his team won a jury verdict garnering more than $70 million. Representing defendants, his teams routinely protect clients from liability for substantial damages. Beyond representing clients, Rik is a frequent lecturer and author on the topic of attorney-client privilege in business transactions. Recognized in the IAM Patent 1000 each year from 2012 to 2016, he was described as "a well-rounded lawyer," as having "great business sense. He thinks of the goal and then focuses his arguments on it, rather than litigating superfluously," as "present[ing] well and do[ing] a good job stating his position in negotiations and settlement talks. He can crunch the numbers and do the engineering, but also knows how to communicate in a way that lay people understand," and as "a seasoned litigator ... [who] has a gift for analyzing extremely complex technical fact patterns, combined with a persuasive narrative style when presenting in court."

Select Experience

  • Led a team in obtaining summary judgment for a client invalidating all asserted claims of five separate patents directed to generating sales leads for automobile dealers.
  • Led a team from multiple law firms representing a small semiconductor chip manufacturing equipment company in asserting patents against a large Japanese company. After several years of discovery, 16 different claim construction proceedings, multiple summary judgment motions and other pretrial jousting by the defendant who tried to win the litigation through a war of attrition, there was a monthlong jury trial leading to a full patent infringement liability verdict that resulted in a settlement garnering well over $70 million for the client.
  • Led a team defending a manufacturer of air scrubbers against a patent infringement charge. After obtaining favorable claim construction rulings through a Markman Hearing, secured favorable settlement.
More »

Experience

  • Led a team in obtaining summary judgment for a client invalidating all asserted claims of five separate patents directed to generating sales leads for automobile dealers.
  • Led a team from multiple law firms representing a small semiconductor chip manufacturing equipment company in asserting patents against a large Japanese company. After several years of discovery, 16 different claim construction proceedings, multiple summary judgment motions and other pretrial jousting by the defendant who tried to win the litigation through a war of attrition, there was a monthlong jury trial leading to a full patent infringement liability verdict that resulted in a settlement garnering well over $70 million for the client.
  • Led a team defending a manufacturer of air scrubbers against a patent infringement charge. After obtaining favorable claim construction rulings through a Markman Hearing, secured favorable settlement.
  • Led a team defending a water purification company against patent infringement charges. After working to obtain discovery of certain critical facts not previously public, secured quick settlement on favorable terms.
  • Defended a large business software company against a patent infringement suit related to computer/telephony integration systems. After discovery and claim construction proceedings, was the principal drafter of a request for reexamination of the asserted patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that was based on user manuals and public uses of similar systems. That reexamination led to all claims being finally rejected by the USPTO.
  • Took over the case for a semiconductor manufacturing equipment company after its asserted patent had been found unenforceable by a district court as having been procured by inequitable conduct. Successfully obtained reversal of that decision in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which led to a favorable settlement.

Recognitions and Memberships

Recognitions

  • IAM Patent 1000 – The World's Leading Patent Practitioners
    • Pennsylvania: Recognized for Patent Litigation (2012 to 2017)
  • The Best Lawyers in America© (2006 to 2018)
    • Philadelphia: Litigation – Intellectual Property
    • Philadelphia: Litigation – Patent
  • Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" (2004 to 2017)
  • Martindale-Hubbell: AV Preeminent

Memberships

  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
    • Professional Programs Committee
    • Litigation Committee
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee
  • Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Association
    • Amicus Committee: Chair
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • American Bar Association
    • Intellectual Property Law Section
    • Litigation Section

Prior Positions

  • Woodcock Washburn LLP
    • General Counsel (2005 to 2013)
    • Finance Committee (1998 to 2013)
    • Work Intake Committee (2005 to 2013)
    • Peer Review Committee (2010 to 2012)
  • National Institute of Trial Advocacy Mid-Atlantic Deposition Program: Faculty (January 2003)

Admissions

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Registration No. 31,863
  • Pennsylvania
  • California [Inactive]

Education

  • J.D., University of Southern California Gould School of Law, 1984, American Jurisprudence Awards in Civil Procedure and Antitrust
  • B.S.E., Chemical Engineering, Princeton University, 1980