Careers

Diversity

With 17 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

What to Expect and How to Prepare: A Guide to Employing Foreign Workers in the Age of Trump

Teresa Goody Guillén Supports New SEC Nominee in Institutional Investor Article

Carolina Alonso Shares Her Journey to the Legal Profession with High School Students

​Bill Bergmann Elected Treasurer of Court of Federal Claims Bar Association; Continues Role on Advisory Council

Mandarin

Cy has been lead trial counsel in numerous patent cases involving a range of technologies, including semiconductor manufacturing and design, consumer electronics, medical devices, Internet services, software&nbsp;and wind turbine generators.

He is recognized as one of The World’s Leading Patent Professionals for handling patent litigation before the ITC&nbsp;by IAM Patent 1000, as a “Patent Star” in patent litigation by Managing Intellectual Property&nbsp;and as a “Top Rated Intellectual Property Litigation Attorney in Washington, D.C.” by Super Lawyers. He previously served as President of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association, an ITC Committee Member of the Intellectual Property Owners Association and was a co-author and editor of the treatise on Section 337, Unfair Competition and the ITC.

core/freeform

J.D., The George Washington University Law School, 1992, 

B.S., Electrical Engineering, Kettering University, 

<ul>
<li>IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners
<ul>
<li>National: International Trade Commission (2020 to 2024)</li>
<li>DC Metro: Recommended for Patent Litigation (2015, 2020 to 2024)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Managing Intellectual Property
<ul>
<li>Patent Star: Patent Litigation &#8211; U.S. National (2020 to 2021)</li>
<li>IP Star: Patents and Trademarks (2014, 2017 to 2019)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Washington, D.C., “Super Lawyer” (2013, 2017 to 2021)</li>
<li>The Legal 500 United States
<ul>
<li>Recommended in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation (full coverage) (2022, 2024)</li>
<li>Other Key Lawyer in Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation (full coverage) (2020)</li>
<li>Key Practitioner in Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation (full coverage) (2019)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

Washington, D.C.

BakerHostetler attorneys, practice areas stand out in The Legal 500 annual guide

BakerHostetler Team Earns Another Runner-up Spot in Litigator of the Week

BakerHostetler Team Earns Runner-up Spot in Litigator of the Week

BakerHostetler’s intellectual property team secures massive victory for Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy

BakerHostetler Attorneys, Practice Areas Shine in The Legal 500 2022 Guide

Remarkable Achievements: IP Teams Earn Three Practice and 16 Individual Rankings

Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Cleared of Infringement in Big Win for Patent Litigation Team

BakerHostetler Intellectual Property Group Earns High Marks in Annual Ranking

BakerHostetler Attorneys Make Significant Gains in The Legal 500 Annual Guide

Intellectual Property

Patent Litigation

ITC
<ul>
<li>Represented wind turbine manufacturer as lead counsel in defense of its wind turbine generators against claims of infringement involving two patents. Defense included product redesigns that were found not to infringe, which enabled client to continue its operations in U.S. market notwithstanding technical violation by obsoleted controls. Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbine Generators and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1218 (Cheney, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented radiopharmaceutical company as lead counsel in the defense of its radiopharmaceutical medical devices against claims of patent infringement. Obtained early determination that design-around systems did not infringe and, following hearing, secured final determination of no violation based upon our showing that all asserted claims of three patents are invalid, which findings were affirmed on appeal. Certain Strontium-Rubidium Radioisotope Infusion Systems, 337-TA-1110 (Shaw, Cheney, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented juvenile products company in the defense of its child carriers against claims of patent infringement. Case terminated after settlement. Certain Child Carriers, Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1154 (Cheney, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company as lead counsel in the defense of its televisions and Blu-ray players against claims of patent infringement concerning various patents directed to video decoding and processing. Case terminated after settlement. Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing Same, 337-TA-1047 (Shaw, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company against patent infringement claims relating to client’s FaceTime application. Complaint withdrawn prior to hearing. Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-858 (Gildea, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its computers, laptops and printers against claims of patent infringement concerning various patents directed to flash memory card interfaces. Following hearing, secured final determination of no violation based on proof that client’s products did not infringe any asserted claims of four patents. Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices, 337-TA-841 (Essex, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company against patent infringement claims relating to secure wireless communications. Complaint dismissed for lack of standing. Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-818 (Shaw, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its laptops from claims of patent infringement concerning display technology. Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices, 337-TA-773 (Gildea, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its Blu-ray products against claims of patent infringement concerning technologies relating to recording media. Certain Electronic Devices Having a Blu-ray Player, 337-TA-764 (Bullock, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its cellphones and other mobile communications devices against claims of patent infringement. Certain Mobile Telephones and Modems, 337-TA-758 (Bullock, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented data storage systems company against patent infringement claims relating to data storage technology. Certain Data Storage Products and Components Thereof, 337-TA-748 (Charneski, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its LCD displays against claims of patent infringement. Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Interoperable with the Same, 337-TA-737 (Essex, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its digital displays against claims of patent infringement. Certain Display Devices Including Digital Televisions and Monitors, 337-TA-713 (Essex, ALJ).</li>
<li>Represented automotive manufacturer in the defense of its hybrid vehicles against claims of patent infringement concerning technologies relating to hybrid drive systems. Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, 337-TA-688 (Essex, ALJ).</li>
</ul>
District Court
<ul>
<li>Represented a leading wind turbine manufacturer asserting two patents against one of its two major competitors in Boston. Following a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict of infringement for client and awarded damages of roughly $60 million. The judge thereafter increased the award to roughly $97 million and permanently enjoined the defendant from making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing or installing its infringing wind turbines in the U.S. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy A/S v. General Electric Co., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-10216-WGY (D. Mass).</li>
<li>Represented a leading wind turbine manufacturer as lead counsel in the defense of patent infringement claims against its wind turbine generators brought by a major competitor. Case was dismissed based on settlement following favorable decisions in a parallel ITC case and an offensive patent infringement case brought against competitor. General Electric Co. v. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Inc., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-11446-WGY (D. Mass).</li>
<li>Represented Internet services company and its subsidiaries as lead counsel in the defense of online video delivery services and online dating services against claims of patent infringement. Invalidated four of six asserted patents on motion to dismiss on Alice grounds prior to answering; the claims of the two remaining asserted patents were dismissed prior to trial. British Telecommunications plc v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, C.A. No. 1-18-cv-00366 (D. Del.).</li>
<li>Represented radiopharmaceutical company as lead counsel in the defense of a radiopharmaceutical medical device against claims of patent infringement. Case was dismissed following favorable decision in parallel ITC case. Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. Jubilant DraxImage Inc., C.A. No. 3-18-cv-04422 (D.N.J.).</li>
<li>Represented Internet services company as lead counsel in the defense of its Internet security services against claims of patent infringement. Obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation, C.A. No. 4-14-cv-02998 (N.D. Cal.).</li>
<li>Represented Internet services company and one of its customers as lead counsel in the defense of its web browser toolbar services against claims of patent infringement. Initially obtained transfer of cases from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California and thereafter invalidated all claims of the two asserted patents on motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was affirmed on appeal. MyMail, Ltd. v. IAC Search &amp; Media, Inc., 5-17-cv-04488 (N.D. Cal.); MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, C.A. No. 5-17-cv-04487 (N.D. Cal.).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company and its subsidiaries as lead counsel in the defense of its digital imaging products against claims of patent infringement relating to semiconductor manufacturing processes. Obtained dismissal with prejudice after invalidating all asserted claims in an IPR, which was affirmed on appeal. Raytheon Co. v. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha, et al., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-0342 (E.D. Tex.). Also represented client in the PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings.</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its computers, laptops and printers against claims of patent infringement concerning various patents directed to flash memory card interfaces. Prior to a Markman hearing, obtained a favorable ruling transferring the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, and shortly thereafter the case settled on favorable terms. MCM Portfolio LLC, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard, C.A. No. 4:14-cv-3643 (N.D. Cal.).</li>
<li>Represented consumer electronics company as lead counsel in the defense of its digital imaging products against claims of patent infringement concerning image sensor technology. Obtained judgment that all asserted claims were not infringed and invalid. L-3 Communications Inc. v. Sony Corp. et al., C.A. No. 10-734-RGA (D.Del.).</li>
<li>Represented chemical company in the defense of its anti-degradant compounds against claims of patent infringement concerning chemical patents. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement. Flexsys v. Kuhmo Tire, et al., CA No. 5:05-CV-156 (N.D. Ohio).</li>
<li>Represented home shopping company and one of its on-air personalities against claims of trademark infringement and false advertising. Although clients were found technically liable, court refused to award any damages, which findings were upheld on appeal. Fishman Transducers, Inc. v. Stephen Paul, et al., 1:07-CV-10071-GAO (D. Mass.).</li>
<li>Represented automobile manufacturer in the defense of its hybrid vehicles from patent infringement claims. Although client was found liable for infringement, jury awarded only a small fraction of the damages sought and judge refused to permanently enjoin hybrid car sales, which findings were upheld on appeal. Paice LLC v. Toyota Corp., CA No. 2:04-CV-211 (E.D. Tex.).</li>
<li>Represented printing company in a patent infringement action relating to offset lithographic printing press technology. Case settled after judge awarded summary judgment of patent infringement against the plaintiff and dismissed the defendants’ inequitable conduct defense. Goss International Americas, Inc. v. MAN Roland Inc., CA No. C-03-513 (D.N.H.).</li>
<li>Represented medical device manufacturer in the defense of its cardiovascular stent products from claims of patent infringement. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement on all four patents, which was affirmed on appeal. Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., CA No. 04-034 (D. Del.)</li>
</ul>
PTAB
<ul>
<li>Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Inc. v. General Electric Co., IPR2022-01279, IPR2022-01479</li>
<li>Vimeo, Inc. et al. v. British Telecommunications plc, IPR2019-00833</li>
<li>Jubilant DraxImage Inc. et al v. Bracco Diagnostics Inc., IPR2018-01448, IPR2018-01449, IPR2018-01450</li>
<li>IAC Search &amp; Media, Inc. et al v. MyMail, Ltd., IPR2018-00117, IPR2018-00118</li>
<li>Sony Corporation v. Raytheon Company, IPR2016-00209, IPR2015-01201</li>
<li>Hewlett-Packard Company v. MCM Portfolio LLC, IPR2013-00217</li>
</ul>
Federal Circuit
<ul>
<li>Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy A/S v. ITC, 2022-1794</li>
<li>MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC and IAC Search &amp; Media Inc., 20-1825, 20-1826</li>
<li>Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. Jubilant DraxImage Inc., 20-1696</li>
<li>Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. ITC, 20-1358</li>
<li>British Telecommunications v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, 19-1917</li>
<li>MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC and IAC Search &amp; Media Inc., 18-1758, 18-1759</li>
<li>Raytheon Company v. Sony Corporation, 17-1554</li>
<li>MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company, 15-1091</li>
<li>L-3 Communications v. Sony Corporation, 15-1052</li>
<li>In re: MCM Portfolio, LLC, 14-0104</li>
<li>Suprema, Inc. v. ITC, 12-1170</li>
</ul>

T. Cy Walker

T. Cy Walker

Experience

Recognitions and Memberships

Insights and News

Credentials

Areas of Focus

Services

Featured Insights