Skip to main content

Robert J.L. Moore


[email protected]



Rob is an attorney experienced in patent litigation and licensing. He practices primarily before the International Trade Commission and various federal District Courts, both asserting patents and defending against allegations of infringement. One major aspect of his practice involves joining parties wishing to sell or monetize patents with those interested in investing in monetization programs.

A trained engineer, Rob assists in the evaluation of patent portfolios, identification of patents for assertion, negotiation of terms between these parties, and all aspects of the ensuing assertion programs. Rob has a particular interest in standard-setting organizations and has published several articles on “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND) licensing terms, which may encumber patents that are essential to such organization’s standards.

In addition, Rob has a background in complex litigation, products liability, and criminal and appellate law. As a member of the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services, Post-Conviction Relief Panel, he represents indigent defendants on appeal. After law school, he clerked for Hon. Fernande Duffly, then of the Massachusetts Appeals Court. He has represented Fortune 500 companies in class actions, toxic torts, and products liability litigation. Rob also served as staff attorney at a leading public health think tank in Boston. He has been an adjunct faculty at New England Law Boston and a course instructor at Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.


  • Northeastern University (JD)
  • University of Massachusetts - Amherst (BS, Computer Systems Engineering, Mathematics, cum laude)

Recognition & Awards

  • Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Rising Star – Intellectual Property Litigation list (2013 – 2018)


  • Member, Federal Bar Association
  • Member, Massachusetts Bar Association
  • Co-chairperson, Northeastern University School of Law Boston Regional Alumni Chapter
  • Board, Law Section, American Public Health Association
  • Faculty, Public Health Law, New England Law Boston (2013)
  • Faculty, Occupational Safety and Health Laws and Compliance, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine (2010 – 2012)

Recent Insights

News & Press



Read about an International Trade Commission in which a judge ruled that Apple infringed a valid Qualcomm patent, but recommended against an exclusion order for Qualcomm.
In a May 10, 2018 ruling, discussed earlier on this blog, Magistrate Judge Payne affirmed the jury’s willfulness finding largely on the ground that TCL did not proffer any evidence that it held a subjective, good faith belief that it did not infringe the patent-in-suit or that the patent was invalid.
On May 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Payne reconsidered his previous March 2018 order which had vacated a jury award, and granted plaintiff Ericsson’s motion for reconsideration. The May ruling makes clear that the accused infringer bears the burden of production for royalty-stacking and other mitigatory arguments on damages.
The public version of ALJ Shaw’s Initial Determination (ID) in U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1012 (1012 Investigation), provides important guidance on enforcement of standard-essential patents (SEPs) in the ITC. 
The decision in U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1012 (“1012 Investigation”), is still confidential, but the ITC has issued a notice stating that ALJ Shaw has ruled in favor of patentee Fujifilm against Sony and recommended that an exclusion order be issued.
Last week, the Federal Circuit held computer memory system patent claims not abstract and thus patent-eligible under Section 101, reversing a lower court dismissal of the case under Rule 12(b)(6).
On Monday, March 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, a case that could have a profound impact on where patent infringement cases may be litigated.
Nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements (NDAs) are among the most common documents attorneys draft and review for clients.  They are so common, in fact, that where a client needs to execute a large number of facially distinct but substantively similar NDAs, it may make sense for the client to draft and review these documents itself.
On January 17, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit against Qualcomm in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for allegedly monopolizing the market for CDMA and LTE baseband processor technologies.
On November 28, 2016, Baroness Neville Rolfe, the United Kingdom Minister of State for Intellectual Property, announced that the U.K. would ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), paving the way for the European Unified Patent Court (UPC).

News & Press

In this Law360 “Expert Analysis” column, a team of Mintz intellectual property attorneys discuss the Federal Circuit’s modified opinion in Power Integrations v. Fairchild. The piece notes that this opinion is a retreat from an earlier ruling that set an unattainable standard for invoking the entire market value rule. The column is authored by Member Steve Akerley, Of Counsel Philip Ducker and Associate Rob Moore.
This column notes that with the legal landscape surrounding SEPs shifting in many countries, it has never been more important to take a global view of patent assertion – but any cross-border litigation strategy needs careful consideration. A team of Mintz intellectual property attorneys including Members Mike Renaud and Jim Wodarski and Associate Rob Moore authored this column.
Mintz attorneys Michael Renaud, Robert Kidwell, and Robert Moore discuss the FTC’s suit against Qualcomm in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California as well as the timing of the lawsuit and specifics of the FTC’s complaints against said company. 
A team of Mintz attorneys author this column discussing the Korean Fair Trade Commission’s steep fine against Qualcomm for antitrust violations and the continued antitrust concerns raised by Qualcomm’s licensing practices.
Fifty-three Mintz attorneys have been named Massachusetts Super Lawyers for 2016 and thirty-one have been named Massachusetts Rising Stars. The findings will be published in the November 2016 issue of Boston Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New England Super Lawyers. 



IP Law Committee: Patent Reform Litigation

Massachusetts Chapter of the Federal Bar Association

Boston, MA