~ Harry Laxton
Harry Laxton Jr. is counsel with Ramey & Schwaller, LLP. He is a registered patent attorney and a certified mediator. He has represented plaintiffs and defendants in numerous lawsuits regarding patent infringement, trade secret appropriations and other intellectual property issues in numerous federal and state courts. He has tried more than 40 lawsuits to verdict.
Harry has prosecuted patents in various technologies, including electronics, computer systems, transportation logistics and cryptography. His practice also includes the drafting of numerous licensing and other intellectual property agreements.
Harry most enjoys patent litigation and the satisfaction of overcoming obstacles for his clients.
Prior to joining Ramey & Schwaller, Harry most recently worked at Goldstein & Lipski; Akin, Gump, Straus, Hauer & Feld; and Hunton & Williams.
Harry accepted early admittance into law school before completing his undergraduate degree. After practicing law for several years, he decided to complete an undergraduate degree program and obtained his B.S. in Electrical Engineering.
Harry and his wife, Delona, have three children: a son at Texas A&M, a daughter at Blinn College and a daughter in high school. In his free time, he trains in mixed martial arts. He and his family enjoy visiting New Orleans because it is a unique place with down-to-earth people and a laid-back culture — and for the great food, of course. Harry previously served in the National Guard and volunteers at veterans’ legal clinics.
- State Bar of Texas
- State Bar of New York
- Licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
- Admitted to practice before the Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of Texas
- Baylor Law School, J.D.
- University of Texas at Arlington, B.S., Electrical Engineering
- AVM Technologies, LLP v. Intel Corp., U.S. District Court (D. Delaware). Integrated-circuit chip technology case involving alleged patent infringement.
- EIT Holdings, LLP v. YELP!, Inc., U.S. District Court (N.D. California). Internet targeted-marketing technology involving alleged patent infringement.
- Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. Sonic Innovations, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court (D. Delaware). Hearing-aid technology case involving alleged patent infringement.
- TGIP, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., et al., U.S. District Court (E.D. Texas). Calling-card technology case involving alleged patent infringement.
- Nowacek v. Bank of America Corp., Texas District Court (57th District). Banking method technology case involving alleged trade secrets misappropriation.
- Logan v. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd., et al., U.S. District Court (S.D. Texas). Spirally-sliced, boneless meat technology case involving alleged patent infringement.
- Nextec Applications, Inc. v. Brookwood Companies, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court (S.D. New York). Advanced fabrics technology (in part used in military applications) case involving alleged patent infringement.
- Juxtacomm Technologies, Inc. v. Ascential Software Corp., et al., U.S. District Court (E.D. Texas). Computer data-integration technology case involving alleged patent infringement.
- Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, P.L.C., U.S. District Court (S.D. Texas). Medical device technology case involving alleged patent infringement, patent misuse and antitrust issues.
- “What In-House Counsel Needs to Know about IP,” 15th Annual Advanced In-House Counsel Course, August 10, 2016
- “What In-House Counsel Needs to Know about IP,” 14th Annual Advanced In-House Counsel Course, August 14, 2015
- “U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Emphasizes the Patent Specification and De-emphasizes the Use of Dictionaries in Interpreting Patent Claims,” Hunton & Williams Patent Practice Client Alert, co-author, August 2005.
- “Asserting the Fifth Amendment Privilege Based on the Act of Production,” Trial Journal, ABA Section of Litigation, Winter/Spring 2007.
- “Commenting on Your Adversary’s Failure to Call a Witness to Testify,” Newsletter, ABA Section of Litigation, Summer 2007.
- “The Missing Witness Adverse Inference or Presumption (Patent Cases),” IP and Technology Law Journal, April 2007.
- Guest lecturer, Virginia Commonwealth University, 2005-2007
It’s time for action. Safeguarding your assets won’t wait. Ramey & Schwaller will provide the legal representation you need to protect your interests. Contact us to discuss your legal needs.