Why Conley Rose?

Conley Rose is exclusively an intellectual property (“IP”) firm providing high-quality,
dependable, and reasonably-priced IP services to a diverse client base.

Our experience in representing numerous Fortune 500 corporations means that we are readily able to manage high work volumes, meticulously adhere to your guidelines and preferred best practices, and aggressively find ways to optimize our internal, client-specific workflows to minimize burdens on you. We have spent over 25 years building our reputation as one of the most trusted IP law firms in the country, and we realize that to continue our success means providing positive results and excellent customer service at competitive rates with flexible fee arrangements.

Share our commitment to diversity by hiring a team of the brighest and most diverse IP professionals you’ll find.

  • Deep expertise in all major technology areas, including electrical, chemical, mechanical, physics, and biotechnology
  • We have a diversity rate of 33% among partners, 45% among associates, and 72% among our patent agents and technical advisors (as of March 1, 2017)
  • Our overall diversity rate among all IP practitioners is 48% (as of March 1, 2017)
  • Over 80% of our IP practitioners hired in 2016 were diverse candidates
  • Approximately 50% of our IP practitioners hired in 2015 were diverse candidates
  • Approximately 57% of our IP practitioners hired in 2014 were diverse candidates

We understand your technology, and we understand your challenges.

  • Nearly 30% of our IP practitioners have advanced technical degrees
  • Our firm carries over 500 years of total IP experience
  • We have a diverse client base that includes over a dozen Fortune 500 clients
  • We have prepared and filed nearly 25,000 patent applications filed since 1991
  • We have prepared approximately 1,500 U.S. patent applications on average per year over the last 5 years
  • We have coordinated the filing of about 500 foreign patent applications on average per year over the last 5 years
  • We have filed nearly 15,000 trademark applications since 1991
  • We maintain an active portfolio of over 3,000 trademark applications and registrations worldwide

Our work speaks for itself.

  • A nearly 80% patent application allowance rate
  • A greater-than-80% trademark application allowance rate
  • A proven track record of defeating patent trolls and other non-practicing entities
    • Ericsson, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, in which we represented petitioner Ericsson in filing six petitions for IPR challenging claims in four patents asserted in a parallel district court litigation. We successfully invalidated all asserted claims in three of the four patents, and IV dismissed the fourth patent from the litigation with prejudice.
    • UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., in which we represented UltimatePointer, which was characterized by Nintendo as an NPE, in a patent infringement lawsuit against Nintendo in district court and the Federal Circuit. On appeal, the court affirmed lower court findings of non-infringement but reversed findings of invalidity.
    • Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cameron Int’l Corp., in which we represented defendant Cameron against an NPE that acquired Duhn Oil during litigation. The court invalidated all asserted claims and, on appeal, we persuaded the court to reverse a preliminary injunction against our client.
    • Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Adorpix LLC et al., relating to shipment tracking software, in which we obtained a strategic early venue transfer which helped prompt a dismissal without any payment to plaintiff.
    • MacroSolve, Inc. v. Antenna Software, Inc., et al., relating to data management systems, in which we settled favorably for our client.
    • Emtel, Inc. v. LipidLabs, Inc. et al., relating to videoconferencing for telemedicine, in which we obtained a favorable, early summary judgment.
    • eDekka LLC v. Water Filters Direct LLC, relating to online shopping, in which we won summary judgment against plaintiff on Section 101 grounds and further obtained an attorney’s fee award against plaintiff based on an exceptional case finding.
    • Lunareye, Inc. v. Gordon Howard Assoc., Inc., relating to GPS tracking devices, in which we obtained the first sanction award against an NPE attorney in the Eastern District of Texas for violating a protective order.
    • One Shot Shooting Products, LLC v. Hunter’s Specialties, Inc., et al., in which we represented defendants against design patent infringement allegations. The case was a non-suit (we obtained dismissal of suit with prejudice before the answer due date).
    • Graham Springs LLC v. Zazzle Inc. et al., in which we represented defendant against NPE. The case was a non-suit (NPE dropped the case before answer was due).
  • IP attorneys from start to finish: A 100% success rate when litigating patents we prepared and prosecuted
    • National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Mud King Products, L.L.C., in which we asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,960,700. The case settled favorably.
    • Special Happy, Ltd. v. Lincoln Imports, Ltd., Inc., et al., in which we asserted U.S. Patent No. RE36,640 in a declaratory judgment action. The court found the patent infringed and entered judgment for both damages and a permanent injunction.
    • Web Devices, LLC v. Ergodyne Corp., in which we asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,776,317. The case settled favorably.
    • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Electronic Custom Distributors, Inc., in which Arlington Industries brought a declaratory judgment action against our client over U.S. Patent No. 7,654,405. The case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
    • Kucala Ent. Ltd. v. Auto Wax Co. Inc., in which Kucala brought a declaratory judgment action regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,727,993. The court found that Kucala willfully, intentionally, and in bad faith infringed the patent. The court entered a permanent injunction against Kucala and ordered damages exceeding $4.1 million plus interest.
    • Willis Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Lincoln Imports Ltd., Inc., et al., in which Willis brought a declaratory judgment against our client for U.S. Patent No. RE36,640, which was prosecuted by our firm. The case settled favorably.
    • OnSite Technology L.L.C. v. DuraTherm Inc., et al., in which our client DuraTherm asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,523,060 in a counterclaim. The jury awarded our client over $2.1 million in lost profits and royalties. Post-trial, the court trebled the damages amount on willfulness grounds. The court also issued a permanent injunction.
    • Lincoln Imports Ltd. Inc. v. Santa’s Best Craft, Ltd. et al., in which our client asserted U.S. Patent No. RE36,640 against multiple defendants. The case settled favorably.

Partner with us. See what the buzz is about.

Top Patent Firm

(Juristat) – 2017-2016

Top 5 Patent Firms in Texas

(IAM Media) – 2017

2013 Boutique Trademark Law Firm Of The Year In Texas

(Corporate Int’l Magazine) - 2013

Top Patent Firm

(Intellectual Property Today) – 2015

Top Patent Firm

(IP Watchdog) – 2015

“Highly Recommended” Patent Firm

(IAM Media) – 2017

Top 10 Fastest Firms in Technology Center 2400

(Juristat) – 2015

Top 5 IP Law Firms in Houston

(Houston Business Journal) – 2013