Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Virginia
  • Pennsylvania (inactive)
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Education

  • J.D., George Washington University Law School, 1992
    Giles S. Rich Moot Court Competition, second place in national finals
  • B.S., Lehigh University, 1987

Memberships

  • American Bar Association

    Federal Circuit Bar Association

    American Intellectual Property Law Association

    American Institute of Chemical Engineers

    ITC Trial Lawyers Association

    Intellectual Property Owners Association, Member of ITC Committee

    DC Bar Association

    Virginia Bar Association (VBA)

    Virginia State Bar Association (VSB)
T +1 202.344.4547
F +1 202.344.8300
 

Adam R. Hess

Partner

Adam Hess is a seasoned Intellectual Property litigator and counselor with a robust and eclectic background, who seeks out creative, cost effective solutions for the issues facing his clients. His experience spans many industries and he has served as lead counsel in a variety of domestic and international venues.

Adam has extensive experience as lead counsel in Federal District Court litigation and Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He has also represented numerous parties in defending against subpoenas issued from ITC investigations and related actions. He works with Customs and Border Protection on issues concerning the enforcement of Exclusion Orders issued by the ITC. In addition, Adam has served as lead counsel in major arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in Europe, as well as before several U.S. arbitration bodies.

In addition to litigation, Adam counsels various U.S., European, and Asian clients on all types of IP matters including portfolio management, licensing, due diligence, opinions, and patent prosecution in a vast range of industries, including: general chemistry, polymers, catalysts, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, nuclear and alternative energy sources, electrical/computer technologies, automotive parts, office furniture and manufacturing processes. Adam has also handled several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Adam is a member of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association, and frequently writes and speaks on matters relating to Section 337 investigations at the ITC. In 2011, he was part of a group from the association that made presentations in numerous Chinese cities on conducting Section 337 investigations at the ITC. Adam is also a member of the Intellectual Property Owners Association’s ITC Committee, and speaks annually at the ITC Committee’s Advanced Practice Seminar.

One of Adam’s most outstanding victories came as a vital team member managing an intricate patent infringement litigation case involving movable electrified office panels. The team secured a damages award of $211.5 million for their client against the most prominent office furniture manufacturer in the world. At the time, this was believed to be the second highest damages award in patent litigation history.

In addition to his intellectual property practice, Adam represent veterans, pro bono, before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Previously, he was a partner at another AmLaw 100 law firm where he served as a Local Office Managing Partner, Hiring Partner, and IP Litigation Group Leader.

Prior to entering law school, Adam spent several years working on processes to improve production of nitrocellulose at Hercules Chemicals, supervising the production of ABS plastic materials at Borg Warner Chemicals, and overseeing production of organic herbicides and insecticides at FMC Corporation.

RECENT MATTERS

Recent matters before the ITC include:
  • In re Certain Height-Adjustable Desk Platforms (Inv. No. 337-TA-1054)
  • In re Certain Krill Oil Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-1019)
  • In re Certain Height-Adjustable Desk Platforms (Inv. No. 337-TA-992)
  • In re Certain Height-Adjustable Desk Platforms (Inv. No. 337-TA-970)
  • In re Certain Laser Abraded Denim Garments (Inv. No. 337-TA-930)
  • In re Certain Beverage Brewin Capsules (Inv. No. 337-TA-929)

Recent Federal District Court matters include:
  • Varidesk LLC v. Ningbo Loctek Visual Tech. Corp., et al. (TXND: 3-17-cv-00907)
  • Varidesk LLC v. Lumi Legend Corp., et al. (TXND: 3-17-cv-00904)
  • Varidesk LLC v. Nortek, Inc. et al. (TXND: 3-16-cv-00773)
  • KHN Solutions Inc. v. Vertisense Inc. (CAND: 4-16-cv-00962)
  • Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS v. Olympic Holding AS, et al. (DED: 1-16-cv-00035)
  • Varidesk LLC v. Brunswick Corp. (TXND: 3-15-cv-03120)
  • RevoLaze LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (OHND: 1-14-cv-01797)
  • RevoLaze LLC v. Roberto Cavalli SpA d/b/a/ Just Cavalli (OHND: 1-14-cv-01819)
  • Ivera Medical Corp. v. Hospira, Inc. (CASD: 3-14-cv-01345)
  • Hospira, Inc. v. Ivera Medical Corp. (NJD: 1-14-cv-03513)
  • Sunless, Inc. v. Heartland Tanning, Inc. (MOWD: 4-13-cv-01066)
  • Sun Style International, LLC v. Sunless, Inc. (KYWD: 1-12-cv-00179)
  • Mycone Dental Supply Co., Inc. v. Creative Nail Design, Inc. (CAND: 3-12-cv-00747)
  • Mycone Dental Supply Co., Inc. v. Creative Nail Design, Inc. (NJD: 1-11-cv-04380)
  • Creative Nail Design, Inc. v. Mycone Dental Supply Co., Inc. (CASD: 3-11-cv-01658)

Significant Matters

  • Adam represented an automotive parts supplier named as a respondent in a Section 337 investigation at the ITC. Prior to the hearing, he successfully resolved this investigation concerning after-market replacement parts for automobiles.
  • Adam represented an international manufacturer accused of infringing patents related to RFID technology and decisively invalidated all relevant claims.
  • Adam represented a cellular telephone manufacturer in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit related to the scope and propriety of an Exclusion Order issued in a Section 337 investigation at the ITC. The appeal was successful and this landmark case will have a far-reaching effect on the ITC’s ability to issue Exclusion Orders against so-called "downstream products."
  • Adam successfully resolved a trademark litigation involving hair care products.
  • Adam achieved significant results when he defended a client and asserted counter claims in a major ICC arbitration related to intellectual property matters.
  • Adam represented a consumer electronics manufacturer named as a respondent in a Section 337 investigation at the ITC. Prior to the hearing, he successfully resolved this investigation concerning automotive navigation systems.
  • Adam represented an international manufacturing company in Federal District Court and obtained dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit relating to polymer manufacturing technology.
  • Adam represented a computer systems company in Federal District Court and successfully resolved a lawsuit involving numerous claims including theft of trade secrets, unfair competition, and violation of a non-compete agreement.
  • Adam represented an automotive accessory manufacturer in Federal District Court and successfully resolved a patent infringement lawsuit involving internet distribution technology.
  • Adam represented a leading mosquito trap manufacturer in a series of patent infringement lawsuits, culminating in an action at the ITC and in Federal Bankruptcy Court. At the ITC, one respondent agreed to a consent order, removing its lead product from the marketplace. Another respondent defaulted, but when unable to proceed against it in U.S. District Court due to the respondent’s bankruptcy filing, he pursued claims in Federal Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court awarded his client possession of the respondent’s entire infringing product inventory, all of its intellectual property rights to the infringing product, and a significant cash amount.
  • Adam obtained a favorable result for a cosmetics company in a patent infringement case against a former employee and the employee's new company.