Paul Skiermont is a trial lawyer with a national litigation and inter partes review practice. Mr. Skiermont represents companies large and small in litigation involving complex science and technology, including pharmaceuticals and other life sciences, telecommunications, aerospace, speech recognition, natural language processing, artificial intelligence and consumer electronics.
Intellectual Asset Management —an industry guide that identifies the top patent practitioners in key jurisdictions around the globe—ranks Mr. Skiermont as one of the Top 12 IP litigation attorneys in Texas, and highlights his “brilliant litigation instinct.”
The online legal news service Law360 reccognized Mr. Skiermont as a founder of one of ten national boutique practices “that have established brands on par with the biggest firms.”
Mr. Skiermont’s IAM profile, based on independent research and interviews with patent attorneys worldwide, notes that he is involved in “some of the most challenging technology altercations going, due to its ability to decode elaborate technical concepts, and package – and deliver – arguments in a way that juries find convincing.”
Representative Patent Cases on Behalf of Patent Owners
IPA v. Microsoft (District of Delaware)
- Lead Trial Counsel for patent owner and SRI International in a patent infringement lawsuit involving natural language processing technology developed at SRI. Microsoft’s Cortana assistant was the accused instrumentality. Defeated multiple IPR attacks on the asserted patents. Tried to a jury with a favorable verdict in the amount of $252 Million; case settled prior completion of post-trial briefing.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, et al. v. Apple (Northern District of New York)
- Lead trial counsel for patent owner and exclusive licensee in a patent infringement lawsuit involving a natural language processing patent owned by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Apple’s Siri personal assistant is the accused instrumentality. Case settled favorably for client, granting non-exclusive license to Defendant for $25 million. Read the Law360 article (PDF) here and Cult of Mac: Siri lawsuit costs Apple $25 million.
B.E. Technology v. Google (District of Delaware).
- Represent patent owner in patent infringement lawsuit over Google’s real-time search advertisements. Case pending.
Packet Intelligence v. NetScout (Eastern District of Texas).
- Represented patent owner in patent infringement lawsuit related to deep packet inspection technology. Case tried to jury finding for patent owner, including a finding of willful infringement.
Representative Patent Cases on Behalf of Accused Infringers
911 Notify, LLC v. Intrado, Inc. (District of Deleware)
- Lead trial counsel representing Intrado in patent dispute related to E-911 telecommunications systems and networks.
GlobeTecTrust v. West IP (District of Delaware)
- Lead trial counsel defending West IP in a patent infringement lawsuit asserting a patent formerly owned by British Telecommunications PLC.
TR Labs v. tw telecom holdings inc. (District of Colorado; MDL District of New Jersey)
- Lead trial counsel for tw telecom in patent infringement lawsuit related to communication networks. Case dismissed.
Voicefill v. West Corporation (District of Nebraska)
- Lead trial counsel for West Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit related to speech recognition technology. Case dismissed.
Burroughs, Inc. v. Panini North America, Inc. (Eastern District of Michigan)
- Lead trial counsel for Panini North America in patent infringement lawsuit related to document processing technology. Case pending.
Klausner v. Smoothstone IP Communications Corporation (Eastern District of Texas)
- Lead trial counsel for Smoothstone IP Communications in patent infringement lawsuit related to visual voicemail technology. Case pending.
Marketing Technologies Concepts v. LaunchSpring, LLC (Northern District of Illinois)
- Lead trial counsel in successful defense of LaunchSpring against MTC’s patent infringement lawsuit related to sales incentive software technology. Case dismissed.
Rolls-Royce v. United Technologies (Eastern District of Virginia)
- Represented United Technologies and its Pratt & Whitney division in an alleged multi-billion dollar patent case brought by Rolls-Royce in the Eastern District of Virginia. The technology at issue related to the jet engines (particularly the fan blades) used on the world’s largest airplane, the Airbus A380. Rolls-Royce sought $11 billion in damages and an injunction preventing further sales of the accused engines, which are sold by a joint venture between United Technologies and General Electric. The Court granted summary judgment in United Technologies’ favor finding that United Technologies’ engine did not infringe the Rolls-Royce patent. This ruling was the culmination of a string of successes in which United Technologies also defeated Rolls-Royce’s motion to dismiss patent misconduct conduct counterclaims, won summary judgment of no willful infringement, and prevailed in convincing the Court to strike Rolls-Royce’s damages theory. In the ruling precluding Rolls-Royce’s damages theory, the Court found that Rolls-Royce’s multi-billion dollar “price erosion and lost profits damages is based on misstatements of the law, a lack of sound evidence, and unsupported economic assumptions, and its paid up royalty theory is similarly flawed. [Rolls-Royce’s expert’s] report reads more like a lawyer’s brief advocating for the highest conceivable damages award rather than an expert trying to assist the trier of fact reach a reasonable damages figure. Because of this extensive overreaching, the entire report is undermined.”
Phoenix v. DIRECTV (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and Central District of California)
- Represented DIRECTV as lead trial counsel in a patent infringement suit filed in the Central District of California. The accused technology involved the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system that answers customer calls. Plaintiff Phoenix Solutions claimed over $40 million in damages. After the Markman hearing and discovery, DIRECTV moved for summary judgment on the ground that it outsourced its IVR to a third-party vendor and therefore could not be liable for direct infringement. The district court agreed, holding that DIRECTV “is not liable for an infringing ‘use’ of the asserted claims because it does not exercise the requisite direction or control over the way that [the vendors] configure and operate the Accused Technology.” Phoenix appealed. Two days after oral argument, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a per curiam decision affirming summary judgment for DIRECTV.
Edge Capture v. Citadel (Northern District of Illinios)
- Represented Citadel as lead trial counsel against allegations of patent infringement related to automated trading technologies. Case resolved by agreement of the parties
- Featured Speaker, “The role of patents and intellectual property in speech technology and business decisions”; AVIOS Voice Search Conference, 2009
- Featured Speaker, “Crafting Value-Based Alternative Fees that are Practical and Profitable”; C4CM Conference, 2011
- Panelist, “Exploring Advancements in Strategies for Alternative Fee Arrangements and Value-Based Fee Structure”; Managing Legal Costs Symposium, 2012
- Panelist, “Perspectives on the Utility of Third Party Financing in Today’s Legal Economy”; Commercial Litigation Funding & Investment Conference, 2011 & 2012
- Featured Speaker, “IP 101: Keeping Your Business Treasures Safe”; Entrepreneurial Development Network, 2012
- Featured Speaker, “Footprints in the Marketplace: Patent Enforcement Strategies to Maximize Value”; ICAP Patent Brokerage/Ocean Tomo Summit on IP Strategy, 2012
IAM Patent 1000 (2014-2025)
IAM 300 & Global Leaders (2019-2025)
“All upper-echelon IP litigators are smart, diligent, outstanding communicators; but what makes Paul Skiermont exceptional is his brilliant litigation instinct. On occasion, sudden developments in cases warrant tossing out the typical lawyer playbook. Paul can process so much information in real-time that he executes new moves at just the right time. As well as being a star on his feet, he prepares well by diving deep into the technology, which he often knows as well as, if not better than, the technical experts. He knows the law cold and is an amazing writer; his prose is lucid, his tutorials superb and his use of pictographic material helps to breathe life into the inventor’s story.” – IAM 1000
Texas Super Lawyers (2018-2025)
Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators (2023-2025)
Twice Awarded First Place Speaker at National Debate Tournament (NDT); one of only three people to win the awards twice since the NDT began in 1947.
Professional Activities
- Barrister, The Honorable Barbara M.G. Lynn American Inn of Court
- Licensing Executives Society
- American Bar Association
- Federal Circuit Bar Association
- Texas Bar Association
- Illinois Bar Association
- Dallas Bar Association
Community Service
- Governing Board Member, University of Kentucky Tournament of Champions Foundation
Education
- Clerkship,
- Law Clerk to the Honorable C. Arlen Beam, U.S.
- Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- University of Chicago Law School,
- High Honors
- Order of the Coif
- Finished in Top 5% of Class
- University of Nebraska College of Law (1L year)
- Finished first year ranked #1 in class
- Selected for Nebraska Law Review
- University of Kentucky,
- B.A., cum laude
- Henry Clay Debate Society
- Four year nonresident full tuition scholarship
- Twice Awarded First Place Speaker at National Debate Tournament (NDT); one of only three people to win the awards twice since the NDT began in 1947.
Bar & Court Admissions
- State Bar of Texas
- State Bar of Illinois
- United States Supreme Court
- U.S. Courts of Appeals
- Federal Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- U.S. District Courts
- Eastern District of Texas
- Northern District of Texas
- Western DIstrict of Texas
- Northern District of Illinois
- Eastern District of Michigan
- District of Nebraska
- District of Colorado
Representative Patent Cases on Behalf of Patent Owners
IPA v. Microsoft (District of Delaware)
- Lead Trial Counsel for patent owner and SRI International in a patent infringement lawsuit involving natural language processing technology developed at SRI. Microsoft’s Cortana assistant was the accused instrumentality. Defeated multiple IPR attacks on the asserted patents. Tried to a jury with a favorable verdict in the amount of $252 Million; case settled prior completion of post-trial briefing.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, et al. v. Apple (Northern District of New York)
- Lead trial counsel for patent owner and exclusive licensee in a patent infringement lawsuit involving a natural language processing patent owned by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Apple’s Siri personal assistant is the accused instrumentality. Case settled favorably for client, granting non-exclusive license to Defendant for $25 million. Read the Law360 article (PDF) here and Cult of Mac: Siri lawsuit costs Apple $25 million.
B.E. Technology v. Google (District of Delaware).
- Represent patent owner in patent infringement lawsuit over Google’s real-time search advertisements. Case pending.
Packet Intelligence v. NetScout (Eastern District of Texas).
- Represented patent owner in patent infringement lawsuit related to deep packet inspection technology. Case tried to jury finding for patent owner, including a finding of willful infringement.
Representative Patent Cases on Behalf of Accused Infringers
911 Notify, LLC v. Intrado, Inc. (District of Deleware)
- Lead trial counsel representing Intrado in patent dispute related to E-911 telecommunications systems and networks.
GlobeTecTrust v. West IP (District of Delaware)
- Lead trial counsel defending West IP in a patent infringement lawsuit asserting a patent formerly owned by British Telecommunications PLC.
TR Labs v. tw telecom holdings inc. (District of Colorado; MDL District of New Jersey)
- Lead trial counsel for tw telecom in patent infringement lawsuit related to communication networks. Case dismissed.
Voicefill v. West Corporation (District of Nebraska)
- Lead trial counsel for West Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit related to speech recognition technology. Case dismissed.
Burroughs, Inc. v. Panini North America, Inc. (Eastern District of Michigan)
- Lead trial counsel for Panini North America in patent infringement lawsuit related to document processing technology. Case pending.
Klausner v. Smoothstone IP Communications Corporation (Eastern District of Texas)
- Lead trial counsel for Smoothstone IP Communications in patent infringement lawsuit related to visual voicemail technology. Case pending.
Marketing Technologies Concepts v. LaunchSpring, LLC (Northern District of Illinois)
- Lead trial counsel in successful defense of LaunchSpring against MTC’s patent infringement lawsuit related to sales incentive software technology. Case dismissed.
Rolls-Royce v. United Technologies (Eastern District of Virginia)
- Represented United Technologies and its Pratt & Whitney division in an alleged multi-billion dollar patent case brought by Rolls-Royce in the Eastern District of Virginia. The technology at issue related to the jet engines (particularly the fan blades) used on the world’s largest airplane, the Airbus A380. Rolls-Royce sought $11 billion in damages and an injunction preventing further sales of the accused engines, which are sold by a joint venture between United Technologies and General Electric. The Court granted summary judgment in United Technologies’ favor finding that United Technologies’ engine did not infringe the Rolls-Royce patent. This ruling was the culmination of a string of successes in which United Technologies also defeated Rolls-Royce’s motion to dismiss patent misconduct conduct counterclaims, won summary judgment of no willful infringement, and prevailed in convincing the Court to strike Rolls-Royce’s damages theory. In the ruling precluding Rolls-Royce’s damages theory, the Court found that Rolls-Royce’s multi-billion dollar “price erosion and lost profits damages is based on misstatements of the law, a lack of sound evidence, and unsupported economic assumptions, and its paid up royalty theory is similarly flawed. [Rolls-Royce’s expert’s] report reads more like a lawyer’s brief advocating for the highest conceivable damages award rather than an expert trying to assist the trier of fact reach a reasonable damages figure. Because of this extensive overreaching, the entire report is undermined.”
Phoenix v. DIRECTV (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and Central District of California)
- Represented DIRECTV as lead trial counsel in a patent infringement suit filed in the Central District of California. The accused technology involved the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system that answers customer calls. Plaintiff Phoenix Solutions claimed over $40 million in damages. After the Markman hearing and discovery, DIRECTV moved for summary judgment on the ground that it outsourced its IVR to a third-party vendor and therefore could not be liable for direct infringement. The district court agreed, holding that DIRECTV “is not liable for an infringing ‘use’ of the asserted claims because it does not exercise the requisite direction or control over the way that [the vendors] configure and operate the Accused Technology.” Phoenix appealed. Two days after oral argument, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a per curiam decision affirming summary judgment for DIRECTV.
Edge Capture v. Citadel (Northern District of Illinios)
- Represented Citadel as lead trial counsel against allegations of patent infringement related to automated trading technologies. Case resolved by agreement of the parties
- Featured Speaker, “The role of patents and intellectual property in speech technology and business decisions”; AVIOS Voice Search Conference, 2009
- Featured Speaker, “Crafting Value-Based Alternative Fees that are Practical and Profitable”; C4CM Conference, 2011
- Panelist, “Exploring Advancements in Strategies for Alternative Fee Arrangements and Value-Based Fee Structure”; Managing Legal Costs Symposium, 2012
- Panelist, “Perspectives on the Utility of Third Party Financing in Today’s Legal Economy”; Commercial Litigation Funding & Investment Conference, 2011 & 2012
- Featured Speaker, “IP 101: Keeping Your Business Treasures Safe”; Entrepreneurial Development Network, 2012
- Featured Speaker, “Footprints in the Marketplace: Patent Enforcement Strategies to Maximize Value”; ICAP Patent Brokerage/Ocean Tomo Summit on IP Strategy, 2012
IAM Patent 1000 (2014-2025)
IAM 300 & Global Leaders (2019-2025)
“All upper-echelon IP litigators are smart, diligent, outstanding communicators; but what makes Paul Skiermont exceptional is his brilliant litigation instinct. On occasion, sudden developments in cases warrant tossing out the typical lawyer playbook. Paul can process so much information in real-time that he executes new moves at just the right time. As well as being a star on his feet, he prepares well by diving deep into the technology, which he often knows as well as, if not better than, the technical experts. He knows the law cold and is an amazing writer; his prose is lucid, his tutorials superb and his use of pictographic material helps to breathe life into the inventor’s story.” – IAM 1000
Texas Super Lawyers (2018-2025)
Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators (2023-2025)
Twice Awarded First Place Speaker at National Debate Tournament (NDT); one of only three people to win the awards twice since the NDT began in 1947.
Professional Activities
- Barrister, The Honorable Barbara M.G. Lynn American Inn of Court
- Licensing Executives Society
- American Bar Association
- Federal Circuit Bar Association
- Texas Bar Association
- Illinois Bar Association
- Dallas Bar Association
Community Service
- Governing Board Member, University of Kentucky Tournament of Champions Foundation