His divorce and custody dispute cost him his job.
Allan Kassenoff resigned from Greenberg Traurig this month. He was, by all accounts, a successful patent trial lawyer with over 20 years of experience. He was also a partner in the giant law firm, earning, according to court filings, $800k-1 million per year.
When his wife, Catherine Kassenoff, posted a message on May 27, stating she intended to kill herself that day in Switzerland in a medically assisted suicide, Frank Report published it. Other outlets soon covered it. It went viral.
Catherine left behind 18 unflattering videos of Allan berating his wife and kids. FR published them. So did others. It went viral on TikTok through Robbie Harvey, who garnered over 30 million views.
While FR has been unable to confirm Catherine took her life, her attorney-friends, Jonathan Davidoff, Wayne Baker, and Harold Burke, all believe she did go through with it.
If Catherine’s battle with Allan cost her her life, it cost him at least his career. Whether he can make a comeback is hard to predict.
However, though he is currently – at least on the record – not with Greenberg Traurig, because his specialty is so niche and essential, it is possible he can find work, even if it has to be under the radar.
But until three weeks ago, nobody had to distance themselves from him.
Allan Kassenoff was doing well. Not only did he have complete custody of the couple’s three children, but the court also barred her from contacting them unsupervised – the cause she said of her suicide – he was rolling in his career.
To make a point here: He went to family court. He ostensibly won, but he lost. He is now notorious, odious, hated, and infamous, and he lost at least a million and likely much more in legal fees and lost his career.
That’s the rule for family court. Like a casino, everyone walks away as a loser, except the odds are better at a casino.
But let us explore what Allan Kassenoff was – and what he lost by contesting in family court, and then ask yourself – what else can one do but hand your whole life over to a judge – give him complete control of your life? If there was no such thing as family court, would these two killer fighters – Catherine and Allan – have been forced to work it out between themselves?
Could it possibly have ended any worse?
Allan was confronted at his home by a News Nation reporter. He declined an interview.
His Career
His high-profile legal work was to defend patents or products sold by companies like Alcoa, General Mills, Amazon.com, Pfizer, Reynolds, Garmin, Sears, and Samsung, against other companies that claimed its patents were infringed, or, conversely, he would represent companies for the same reason – infringement.
In addition to patent litigation, Kassenoff specialized in:
Pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and chemical intellectual property law
ANDA Hatch-Waxman litigation
Post-issuance patent proceedings, including inter partes review, post-grant review, and ex parte reexaminations
One of the notable companies Kassenoff represented – as lead attorney – was Samsung.
Samsung entrusted Kassenoff with protecting their patents, such as:
secure contact-free payment from a mobile device
video processing of Samsung’s SmartTVs
lock screen feature of the Galaxy smartphones
reconfigurable communication networks
authenticating mobile devices over multiple links
pedometer functionality
Bluetooth, LTE, and other communication protocols
lithium battery technology
It is unclear if Samsung will continue to use him. Despite his resignation from Greenberg Traurig, he brings unique skills to the specialized field of patent infringement litigation.
Samsung might not be keen to jettison him, arguing that his divorce and custody – even his wife’s suicide – have nothing to do with patent infringement.
On the other hand, Kassenoff is radioactive. His reputation precedes him. Judges, juries, the corporate world, and consumers are sensitive to his potential for bad press.
Let us look at the legal work he did.
Awards & Accolades
•Listed, Benchmark Litigation, 2018-2023
•“National Practice Area Star,” 2022-2023
•“Local Litigation Star,” 2022-2023
•“National Litigation Star,” 2018-2021
•Listed, Patexia, 2023
•17th, “Best Performing Patent Litigators Representing Defendants”
•40th, “Best Performing Patent Litigators Overall (Representing Plaintiffs or Defendants)”
•Listed, The Legal 500 United States, 2022
•Intellectual Property Patents: Litigation (full coverage), 2022
•“Recommended Lawyer,” 2022
•“Other Key Lawyer,” 2022
•Listed, Managing IP Magazine’s World IP Handbook and Survey, “IP Stars: New York Patent Stars,” 2013-2022
•Listed, IAM magazine, “IAM Patent 1000,” Litigation, 2012-2022
•Listed, LMG Life Sciences, “Life Science Star,” 2017-2022
•Listed, Lawdragon 500, “Leading Litigators in America,” 2022
Here are his Samsung cases.
MemoryWeb LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.: Allan was the lead counsel for Samsung in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of two patents directed to Samsung Gallery photo applications.
RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.: Lead counsel for Samsung in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of five patents directed to secure contact-free payment from a mobile device.
Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.: Lead counsel for Samsung in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of a patent directed to video processing of Samsung’s SmartTVs.
Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.: Lead counsel for Samsung in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of a patent directed to the lock screen feature of the Galaxy smartphones.;
Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.: Lead counsel for Samsung in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of a patent directed to reconfigurable communication networks.;
Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.: Lead counsel for Samsung in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of a patent directed to authenticating mobile devices over multiple links.;
Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.: Lead counsel for Samsung in a consolidated patent infringement case alleging infringement of 5 patents concerning pedometer functionality.;
Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.: Lead counsel for Samsung in 4 patent infringement cases alleging infringement of 4 patents concerning Bluetooth, LTE and other communication protocols.;
Advanced Electrolyte Technologies LLC, et al. v. Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., et al.: Lead counsel for defendants in a patent infringement case concerning lithium battery technology in the Western District of Texas.;
Some of his other cases
Chewy, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, (S.D.N.Y.). Representing Chewy in a declaratory judgment action against IBM relating to web and mobile technologies.;
International Business Machines Corporation v. Rakuten, Inc., (D. Del.). Representing Rakuten in a patent litigation relating to web and mobile technologies.;
Sovereign Peak Ventures, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.:Lead counsel for LG Electronics in a case brought by Sovereign Peak Ventures, LLC involving 7 patents concerning streaming video, WiFi Direct and electronic assistants.;
Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.: Represented the defendant in patent litigation regarding technology for two-way wireless communications, including methods and devices for processing data messages between a mobile unit and a network operations center, delivery notification technology.;
Garmin Switzerland GMBH, and Garmin Corporation v. Navico, Inc.: Representing the defendants in a patent infringement case involving marine route navigation technology.;
IpLearn, LLC v. Blackboard Inc.: Represented Blackboard in a patent case involving online educational software.;
DietGoal Innovations LLC v. General Mills Sales, Inc.: Represented General Mills in a patent infringement action concerning a patent related to diet planning. Successfully transferred the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Eastern District of Virginia.;
Taranis IP LLC v. Garmin International, Inc., et al.: Represented Garmin International in a patent litigation initiated by Taranis IP in the Northern District of Illinois. The asserted patent generally relates to synthetic vision systems for vehicles.;
Honeywell International Inc. v. Furuno Electric Co. Ltd., et al.: Represented Navico in a multi-patent case brought by Honeywell in the District Court of Minnesota.;
Parallel Iron v. TeleNav, Inc.: Lead counsel for TeleNav, a leading provider of location-based services (LBS) for smartphones, in a patent case in the District Court of Delaware involving data storage via high throughput storage devices.;
Glory Licensing LLC v. Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc.; see below.
Glory Licensing LLC v. Sears Holding Corporation: Representation of Sears Holding Corporation and Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc. in connection with separate actions initiated by Glory Licensing in the District of New Jersey. The patents in suit relate to collecting and extracting data from hard copy documents. Invalidated all asserted claims under 101 on motion to dismiss.;
Ambato Media, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc., et al.: Represented Garmin International, Inc. in a multi-defendant case filed by Ambato Media in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The asserted patent relates to navigation devices. After prevailing at the Markman hearing, Ambato was forced to drop its allegation of infringement against over 95% of the accused products.;
SBJ IP Holdings 1, LLC v. Blockbuster Inc., et al.: Represented Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc. in a patent litigation initiated by SBJ IP Holdings 1, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Ward. The asserted patent relates to generating and displaying pre-customized web pages.;
Honeywell v. Universal Avionics: Defending Universal Avionics against Honeywell’s assertion of five patents relating to terrain awareness and warning systems used in aircraft.;
Universal Avionics v. Optima Technology Group, et al.: Representing Universal Avionics in a declaratory judgment action asserting invalidity and non-infringement of two aviation technology patents, together with various state law claims.;
Consumer Products/Materials Science: Crye Precision LLC, et al. v. FirstSpear, LLC.: Lead counsel for Crye Precision in a patent infringement case involving lightweight garments including bulletproof vests.;
Network Signatures, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc.: Represented General Mills in a patent litigation in the Central District of California. The patent generally related to a method of using public and private keys to generate a cryptographic signature that can be used to authenticate information. Succeeded in rendering all asserted claims unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.;
Symbology Innovations, LLC v. General Mills, Inc.: Represented General Mills in the Eastern District Texas before Judge Schroeder. The patents involved the use of QR codes to directly access product information on the Internet. Settled with plaintiff.;
Reflection Code LLC v. General Mills, Inc.: Represented General Mills in the Eastern District Texas before Judge Gilstrap. The patents involved the use of QR codes to access a database that redirects a user to product information on the Internet. The case settled.;
Tru-Balance, LLC v. Alcoa Inc.: Representing Alcoa Inc. in a patent litigation initiated by Tru-Balance in the District of Colorado. The asserted patent related to a wheel centering pin device. Prevailed on a motion to stay the case pending a reexamination initiated by GT and all claims of the patent were found invalid by the PTO.;
Minkus Electronic Display Systems Inc. v. Adaptive Micro Systems LLC, et al.: Representation of six defendants in a patent litigation initiated by Minkus Electronic Display Systems Inc. in the District of Delaware before Chief Judge Robinson. The complaint alleged infringement of a patent generally relating to digital display technology.;
Selecto, Inc. v. Everpure, LLC and Pentair Filtration, Inc.: Represented Pentair Corporation in connection with a litigation in the Central District of California involving infringement by Selecto of a patent relating to modular water filtration devices.;
Poly-America L.P. v. Presto Products Co.: Representing Presto, a subsidiary of Alcoa, in a patent litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas relating to methods of manufacturing ‘wave cut’ plastic trash bags.;
Alcoa Inc. v. The PackMate Co., et al.: Brought action on behalf of Alcoa in the Eastern District of Virginia for infringement by PackMate of patents, trademarks and copyrights relating to Alcoa’s Handi-Vac vacuum-sealing system.;
Alcoa Inc. v. Alcan: Asserted patent on behalf of Alcoa relating to the aluminum alloy used to construct the Boeing 777. Alcoa accepted Alcan’s offer of judgment to cease selling and offering for sale the infringing alloy.;
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Alcoa Inc. & Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc.: Represented Alcoa and Reynolds in defense of claims for patent and trademark infringement relating to plastic bag technology. Resulted in cross-license agreement.;
KKG, LLC v. Reynolds Consumer Products Inc., et al.: Represented Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. and ‘a Fortune 50 Retailer in a patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas brought by a patent holding company in connection with Reynolds Slow Cooker Liners. After a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement in approximately one hour.;
Union Carbide Corp. v. Shell Oil Co.: Represented Union Carbide in a three-week jury trial concerning three patents claiming ethylene oxide catalysts.;
Financial Services: CyberSource v. Retail Decisions: Represented Retail Decisions, a UK-based financial services company, in a patent litigation before Chief Judge Patel in the Northern District of California against CyberSource. The asserted patent relates to methods of detecting fraud in on-line credit card transactions. Prevailed on motion for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims based on the ‘machine or transformation’ test enunciated In re Bilski. After CyberSource appealed the district court’s decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed and held that the claims failed the ‘machine-or-transformation’ test and claimed an unpatentable mental process.;
Secure Axcess, LLC v. Bank of America Corp., et al.: Represented North Dallas Bank and Trust in a patent case involving a picture authentication system for on-line banking.;
Leon Stambler v. BankUnited, Inc. and BankUnited, National Association: Represented BankUnited in a patent litigation action in the Southern District of Florida concerning encryption technology used in the banking industry. The plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice with no payments being made.;
Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Bank of Stockton, et al.: Represented Farmers and Merchants Bank of Long Beach in a patent case involving account limitations placed on on-line banking transaction.;
Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Scottrade, Inc.: Represented Scottrade, Inc. in connection with the defense of a patent litigation initiated by Joao Bock in the Northern District of Georgia. The asserted patents generally relate to on-line secure transactions. Successfully moved to transfer the case from Georgia to the Eastern District of Missouri.;
Leon Stambler v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.: Represented Office Depot in a multi-defendant case filed by Leon Stambler in the Eastern District of Texas before the Honorable Judge Folsom. The asserted patents relate to secure online payment services.;
Leon Stambler v. Intuit Inc., et al.: Represented S1 Corporation and International Bancshares in a patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The patents-in-suit generally relate to encryption technology for securing online technologies.;
Leon Stambler v. Merrill Lynch & Co., et al.: Represented Metavante Corporation, a division of Fidelity Information Services, in connection with alleged infringement of patents relating to secure online payment services.;
Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Valutec Card Solutions, LLC, et al.: Defending Valutec against allegations of infringement of a patent relating to prepaid gift cards. Obtained a final judgment in favor of Valutec for non-infringement at the Markman;
Medical Device and Pharmaceutical:
Barry v. Medtronic Inc.: Represented Medtronic in a litigation involving surgical methods and systems for correcting severe spinal deformities in the Eastern District of Texas.;
Braun Melsungen AG, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al.: Representation of B. Braun in a litigation involving infringement by Becton, Dickinson and Company of 10 patents generally relating to IV catheter safety systems. The case is presently pending in the District of Delaware.;
Enzo v. Amersham Biosciences, Inc., et al.: Representing Enzo in multiple patent litigations relating to methods and devices for labeling, hybridization and detection of nucleic acids used in the detection of disease.;
The Rockefeller University & Chiron Corp. v. Centocor, Inc. & Abbott Laboratories: Represented Rockefeller University and Chiron (which was acquired by Novartis) in an action alleging patent infringement of antibody products REMICADE and HUMIRA . The litigation resulted in settlements in which each defendant took a royalty-bearing license to our clients’ patents.;
ANDA Hatch-Waxman: Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.: Representing Teva in the Paragraph IV ANDA challenge of Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s patents in the District of Delaware relating to Xtampza ER (oxycodone) extended-release capsules indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate.;
Recro Gainesville LLC v. Actavis Laboratories FL Inc.: Representing Actavis/Teva in Paragraph IV challenge of Recro Gainesville LLC in the Federal Circuit relating to Pernix’s patents on Zohydro extended release tablets indicated for the management of severe pain requiring daily, around the clock, long term treatment.;
Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Represented Hanmi Pharmaceutical in connection with an NDA filing under 505(b)(2) for S-omeprazole and related patent due diligence.;
Pfizer v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories: Brought patent infringement action on behalf of Pfizer based on Dr. Reddy’s filing of a ‘paper’ NDA concerning Pfizer’s NORVASC heart medicine. Resulted in a precedent-setting Federal Circuit decision in favor of Pfizer interpreting the scope of protection during a patent term restoration period.;
Chiron Corp. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.: Brought patent infringement action on behalf of Chiron based on Roxane’s filing of an ANDA concerning Chiron’s tobramycin TOBI product. Resulted in Roxane withdrawing its ANDA.; The above representations were handled by Kassenoff prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig LLP.;
Post-Issuance Patent Proceedings: Becton Dickinson and Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AG(IPR2017-01587) – Representing patent owner in IPR proceedings related to patents covering IV catheter safety systems.
What About Samsung?
The question of whether Samsung has dropped Kassenoff is yet to be determined.
This statement came out online, then appears to have been retracted. It is Samsung Norway not Samsung America, the company Kassenoff represented.
Dear followers,
We would like to address the current situation involving Allan Kassenoff. As representatives of Samsung Norway and Samsung Benelux, we have made the decision to part ways with Allan Kassenoff. However, we understand that this decision has not been implemented by Samsung as a whole at this time. This is a complex matter that requires careful consideration from the entire organization.
There are various reasons contributing to this situation, and Samsung is committed to handling it thoughtfully rather than rushing into any conclusions. In the meantime, we are actively working to expedite Allan Kassenoff’s termination. We deeply appreciate your understanding and assure you that we are dedicated to regaining your trust in our company.
Sincerely,
Samsung Benelux Customer Journey Team
The statement might be phony, but one thing which is not phony is that Allan Kassenoff and his wife, wherever she may be, have experienced drastic changes in their lives after some years of fighting.
It is ironic that professionally, as lawyers, their jobs were to fight and win – using whatever tactics it took in court or outside of it.
Maybe they should not have taken their job skills to their marriage and family life.
