Wayne Stacy

Partner

wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com

San Francisco

P: +1.415.291.6206 F: +1.415.291.6306
Wayne Stacy Photo

Wayne Stacy is a partner in the firm's Intellectual Property group.With a computer-engineering background, he has more than twenty years of experience litigating high-stakes technology cases, including patent, trade secret, software-based copyright and technology-licensing disputes. He has particular experience in competitor-on-competitor cases where injunctions, key business sectors, and large damages are at risk. He has served as the lead lawyer at trial in numerous jury trials. When trial is likely necessary, he has a proven record. Realizing that not all cases need to go to a jury, Wayne also has demonstrated an ability to navigate business disputes and solve tough problems for his clients outside the courtroom.

Mr. Stacy is among the most recognized technology litigators in the country. He was recently honored as an "IP Trailblazer" by the National Law Journal (2017). He has also been recognized repeatedly by Chambers USA (2007-2016) and Intellectual Asset Manager (IAM) as one of the leading IP litigators in the United States (2017). Chambers describes him as “a strong trial lawyer” and “a renowned patent litigator.” And the Daily Journal reported that he was “fabulous in his ability to think outside of the box and be creative with IP litigation.” He has been quoted in scores of IP-related news articles and speaks around the world on the issues surrounding juries and technology cases.

For almost two decades, Mr. Stacy has dedicated his spare time to teaching law students about the realities of litigating technology cases. He has been an adjunct professor at three universities, teaching patent law, patent litigation, copyright law and PTAB litigation. He is currently an adjunct professor at the University of California, Hastings.

Mr. Stacy also devotes significant time to improving the legal community. He has served on Federal Court local-rule committees - drafting patent local rules. And he serves as faculty for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA), where he has taught a variety of courses from deposition skills to his favorite course, trial skills for public service attorneys.

Related Experience

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
  • Bookham, Inc. v. JDS Uniphase (Northern District of California) - litigation counsel for Bookham against a major competitor in a patent litigation involving tunable lasers
  • 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)
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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)

Awards & Community

Recognized as a "Trailblazer" for IP by The National Law Journal, 2017

Recognized in Intellectual Asset Management's IAM Patent 1000, 2017

Recognized as "Patent Litigator of the Year" by Global Law Expert, 2015

Recognized by Chambers USA, 2007-2016

News

Insights

Events

Recent