Wayne Stacy is a partner in Cooley's Litigation department and a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation practice group. He is consistently ranked by Chambers USA and Intellectual Asset Manager (IAM) as one of the top patent litigators in the United States — with Chambers referring to him as "a strong trial lawyer" and "a renowned patent litigator" and IAM highlighting his specialty in competitor-versus-competitor litigations. He is also an adjunct professor at both the University of Colorado School of Law and the University of Denver School of Law where he has taught patent law and patent litigation classes for over a decade. Recently, Mr. Stacy co-developed a first-of-its-kind class for the University of Denver focused on Patent Office Litigation and the new inter partes review process.

Mr. Stacy has tried patent cases totaling over a half-billion dollars in value to verdict. He regularly litigates in leading patent jurisdictions such as the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California, among others. He is also a co-author of the patent local rules in the District of Colorado. Mr. Stacy frequently handles cases where injunctions are the primary remedy. Understanding that not all cases should go to a jury, he has also resolved scores of other cases prior to trial. This case-by-case approach to resolving patent disputes has generated strong client praise — with one General Counsel praising Mr. Stacy in an interview with the Daily Journal as "fabulous in his ability to think outside of the box and be creative with IP litigation."

Although he has experience with all types of patent cases, he specializes in competitor-against-competitor cases where injunctions and large damages are at issue. Notably, Mr. Stacy has extensive experience on both sides of these company-critical litigations. He has helped patent holders protect their market share from upstart competitors, and he has defended companies attacked by their patent-wielding competitors.

In addition to representing clients in high-stakes patent litigation in federal courts across the country, Mr. Stacy advises his clients on the strategic uses of post-grant trial proceedings within the context of litigation, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He also co-created PTAB Digest, a leading resource which tracks and analyzes PTAB decisions, and currently serves as one of the executive editors for the online tool.

Leveraging his computer engineering background, Mr. Stacy focuses on litigating electronics and software cases. He has recently handled cases involving security software, telecommunications systems, LCDs, semiconductor and high-power lasers, microprocessors, thin films, optical communication components, and cloud software.

Mr. Stacy's business-minded approach to patent litigation has resulted in invitations to speak to business groups around the world — from Taipei to Tel Aviv — about the practical realities of U.S. patent litigation. He is also a frequent presenter at programs designed to teach other lawyers about cutting-edge patent topics. Mr. Stacy has published numerous articles, served as the editor for the Intellectual Property column of the Colorado Lawyer, and, for the last decade, has been an organizer for one of the country's largest patent legal education events, the Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property Institute.

Mr. Stacy received his law degree, with high honors, from The George Washington University. While at George Washington, he served on Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. He also served as an extern for the Honorable Judge Rader of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Stacy received his BS degree, cum laude, in Computer Engineering from Southern Methodist University.

Representative Cases – Defense:

Finisar v. Oplink Communications (Northern District of California) – counsel for Oplink Communications against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit concerning optical transceivers and microcontrollers.
Mondis v. Chimei-Innolux et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – counsel for Chimei-Innolux in a patent infringement litigation relating to control of displays.
Centrify v. Quest Software (Northern District of California) – counsel for Quest in a patent infringement litigation against a major competitor in the enterprise-level software security space.
Finjan v. Webroot et al. (Delaware) – counsel for Webroot in a patent infringement suit related to software security.
QinetiQ v. Oclaro (Northern District of California) – counsel for Oclaro in a patent infringement suit related to optical components.
Klausner Technologies v. Qwest Telecommunications et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Qwest in a patent infringement action involving telecommunications hardware and software.
Web Telephony v. Qwest Telecommunications et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Qwest in a patent infringement action involving telecommunications hardware and software.
In the Matter of Certain Tunable Laser Chips (International Trade Commission) – litigation counsel for Bookham, the respondent, in a patent litigation involving tunable lasers.
Widevine, Inc. v. Verimatrix (Western District of Washington) – counsel for Verimatrix against a major competitor in a patent litigation involving video delivery to mobile devices.
Widevine, Inc. v. Verimatrix (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Verimatrix, the accused infringer, in a patent litigation involving video delivery security.
Information Protection and Authentication of Texas, LLC v. Webroot et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Webroot in a patent litigation involving electronic firewalls.
Bookham, Inc. v. JDS Uniphase (Northern District of California) – litigation counsel for Bookham against a major competitor in a patent litigation involving tunable lasers.
Interactive Systems Worldwide v. Progressive Gaming International (District of Nevada) – litigation counsel to Progressive Gaming in a patent-infringement litigation involving interactive sports-gaming software.
Quest Software v. BBS Technologies, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Quest in a patent infringement and computer fraud action against a competitor involving monitoring software.
Stratos LightWave v. Picolight (Delaware District Court) – litigation counsel to Picolight in a patent-infringement litigation involving vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VSCELS).

Representative Cases – Plaintiff:

Oplink Communications v. Finisar (Eastern District of Texas) – counsel for Oplink Communications against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit involving semiconductor lasers (VCSELS).
ACQIS v. IBM (Eastern District of Texas) – counsel for ACQIS in a patent infringement action involving blade server technology. Secured trial victory after jury found that the patents were valid and infringed.
Quest Software v. Centrify (District of Utah) – counsel for Quest in a patent infringement litigation against a major competitor in the enterprise-level software security space.
Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Ameren (Eastern District of Missouri) – litigation counsel for Katz in a patent infringement action involving computer telephony and call-center systems.
HyperRoll, Inc. v. Hyperion Solutions (Northern District of California) – litigation counsel for HyperRoll in a competitor-on-competitor infringement suit involving database software.
Qualcomm Incorporated v. Nokia Corporation (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent infringement action involving cellular telephony systems and mobile TV applications.
International Printer Corp. v. Brother International et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for International Printer in a patent infringement action against twelve manufacturers of networkable multi-function printer and imaging technology.
Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Chevron et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Katz in a patent infringement action against nine defendants. The technology involves computer telephony and call-center systems.
Quest Software v. Witness Systems (Northern District of California) – litigation counsel to Quest Software against a competitor in a software copyright infringement action involving database software.
IPLearn v. Plateau Learning Systems (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel to IPLearn in a patent-infringement litigation involving computerized-learning software.
Positive Technologies v. Fujitsu America et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel to Positive Technologies in a patent-infringement litigation against Fujitsu and others. The technology in this case involves LCD and plasma display technology.
Bookham, Inc. v. Unaxis Balzers AG (Northern District of California) – litigation counsel to Bookham in a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement brought against Unaxis Balzers. The technology in this case involved color wheels used in light-projection engines.
Analytical Spectral Devices v. CDEX (District of Colorado) – litigation counsel to Analytical Spectral Devices in a patent-infringement litigation involving hardware and software for validating the identity of pharmaceuticals.
Applied Films GMBH v. Galileo Vacuum Systems (Northern District of Georgia) – litigation counsel to Applied Films in a patent-infringement litigation against Galileo Vacuum Systems and its U.S. subsidiary. The technology in this case involves web-coating systems.
Quest Software v. Saint Technologies (Canadian Federal Court) – U.S. litigation counsel to Quest Software and consultant for Canadian litigation involving software copyright issues. The technology in this case involves database-management software.
Outlast Technologies v. Frisby Technologies (Colorado District Court) (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals) – litigation counsel to Outlast Technologies in a patent-infringement case against Frisby involving phase change materials used to regulate body temperature.
Picolight v. Honeywell (Delaware District Court) – litigation counsel to Picolight in a patent-infringement litigation involving vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VSCELS).
Murex Licensing v. Vicinity (Eastern District of Virginia) – litigation counsel to Murex Licensing in patent-infringement litigation involving location and mapping software.