Kevin M. Bovard

Partner

Philadelphia
T +1.215.564.2727
F +1.215.568.3439

Overview

Kevin Bovard concentrates his practice on intellectual property and technology law, handling copyright, trademark and patent matters. In addition to his significant litigation experience, Kevin routinely counsels clients on trademark and copyright procurement, protection, clearance, registration and enforcement, as well as IP licensing. Kevin applies his intellectual property knowledge in many and varied industries, from small start-up firms to large multinational corporations.

Kevin recently taught Temple Law School's Introduction to Intellectual Property course as an adjunct professor.

Select Experience

Trademark/Trade Dress
  • Serves as lead trademark counsel and manages the global trademark portfolios of multiple Fortune 500 and 1000 companies, as well as smaller entities.
  • Provides comprehensive trademark services, including clearance and trademark prosecution services, as well as enforcement strategies, to consumer products companies, medical device manufacturers, software companies, apparel retailers and other brand owners.
Copyright
  • Representing, as lead counsel, an author's heir in a suit for declaratory judgment of joint authorship and for an accounting.
  • Represented a telephone directory publisher in defending claims of copyright infringement based on the plaintiff's collection of stock photographs.
Patent
  • Defending a large technology company in a patent infringement case involving contact-voltage detection along streets. District court litigation was stayed following successful institution of inter partes review at the USPTO, after which all asserted claims were found to be invalid. 
  • Defended an LED manufacturer against claims of design patent infringement. Virtually all damages were eliminated on summary judgment.
More »

Experience

Trademark/Trade Dress
  • Serves as lead trademark counsel and manages the global trademark portfolios of multiple Fortune 500 and 1000 companies, as well as smaller entities.
  • Provides comprehensive trademark services, including clearance and trademark prosecution services, as well as enforcement strategies, to consumer products companies, medical device manufacturers, software companies, apparel retailers and other brand owners.
  • Lead counsel in cancellation and opposition proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO.  
  • Lead counsel defending a light emitting diode (LED) retailer against trademark infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims.
  • Represented a playground equipment manufacturer in asserting trade dress infringement claims against a competitor.
  • Represented a clothing and home goods retailer in asserting trademark infringement and related Lanham Act claims.
  • Obtained transfer of cyber-squatted web domains through a UDRP proceeding. 
Copyright
  • Representing, as lead counsel, an author's heir in a suit for declaratory judgment of joint authorship and for an accounting.
  • Represented a telephone directory publisher in defending claims of copyright infringement based on the plaintiff's collection of stock photographs.
  • Represented a software company in asserting copyright and related breach of contract claims against a former customer.
  • Represented an enterprise applications software company in a case against its direct competitor, alleging violations of the U.S. Copyright Act, Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Unfair Competition Law, and related business torts.
  • Represented a visual artist in asserting claims under the Visual Artists Rights Act, the U.S. Copyright Act and state law.
Patent
  • Defending a large technology company in a patent infringement case involving contact-voltage detection along streets. District court litigation was stayed following successful institution of inter partes review at the USPTO, after which all asserted claims were found to be invalid. 
  • Defended an LED manufacturer against claims of design patent infringement. Virtually all damages were eliminated on summary judgment.

Recognitions and Memberships

Recognitions

  • The Legal Intelligencer: "Lawyers on the Fast Track" (2017)

Prior Positions

  • San Francisco Barristers' Club IP/Internet Law Section: Co-Chair, Bar Associate

Admissions

  • Pennsylvania
  • California

Education

  • J.D., Stanford Law School, 2006
  • B.A., Swarthmore College, 2003

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
USPTO Memo Addresses Eligibility of Method-of-Treatment Claims in View of Federal Circuit Decision
By David N. Farsiou
June 18, 2018
In a memorandum dated June 7, 2018 (Memo), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) set out new guidance concerning method-of-treatment claims, which should be welcome news for patentees. The memo addressed the decision by the U.S...
Read More ->
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
Additional Discovery of Clinical Trial Data in Inter Partes Review
By Timothy J. Doyle, David N. Farsiou
March 30, 2018
In Apotex, Inc. et al. v. Novartis AG (IPR 2017-00854, paper 47 dated Feb. 5, 2018), petitioner Apotex sought, and was granted, discovery of a Phase III clinical trial protocol from patent owner Novartis. The patent at issue in the IPR...
Read More ->
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
Core Wireless: Moving Beyond Eligibility as the Exception to the Exception?
By Brendan E. Clark
February 8, 2018
January was an exciting month for patent professionals still attempting to make sense of the fallout from the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International decision. Hot on the heels of its Jan. 10 decision in Finjan, Inc. v...
Read More ->
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems: Attaching Security Profile to a Downloadable Is Patent Eligible
January 16, 2018
In Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered a decision containing interesting rulings on patentable subject matter (affirming the District Court determination that certain claims were patent...
Read More ->
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
No Bull: Acquired Distinctiveness Is Not a Given
By Kevin M. Bovard
April 20, 2017
The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board recently issued a nonprecedential decision that serves as a good reminder that distinctiveness is not automatically acquired simply by long-standing use. Klickitat Valley Chianina, LLC, Serial No...
Read More ->