Robert Lord

Attorney / Shareholder

With more than 15 years of patent prosecution experience, Robert Lord relies on a wealth of legal and business-savvy approaches to solving client’s intellectual property issues. His practice focuses on patent prosecution, portfolio management, due diligence, client counseling, licensing, and ITC/Federal Court litigation in the fields of software engineering, business methods, and computer engineering.

From a technology standpoint, Robert has experience handling IP matters requiring technical competence ranging from front-end graphical user interfaces to massively parallel processing cycle-based systems for circuit design. He has specific expertise with compilers, debuggers, database architecture, artificial intelligence, medical devices, optics, graph theory, capacitive sensing, biometrics, haptics, aeronautics, geophysics, seismic simulation, geological process modeling, telecommunications, data analytics, point of sale solutions, financial trading analytics, among others. As a software developer prior to practicing law, he worked on programming projects for the IRS, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Baylor University, and Apple Inc.

Robert oversees the firm’s prosecution practice and manages over 3,000 active IP matters (patent, trademark, and copyright) for numerous medium-to-large companies, while still being intimately involved in daily patent prosecution matters.

Robert has been recognized with a Top 10 Allowance Rate for Art Groups and e-commerce art units by Juristat (2015), America’s Top Patent Prosecutors (2011), and Patent Buddy (2011).

Practice Areas

Intellectual Property

Admitted to Practice

State Bar of Texas
United States District Courts:
Eastern District of Texas
Northern District of Texas
Southern District of Texas
Western District of Texas
United States Courts of Appeals:
Federal Circuit
Other Admissions:
United States Patent and Trademark Office


Baylor University School of Law
1994, J.D.
Baylor University
1991, B.A., Computer Science

Recognition, Honors, and Achievements

2015 Top 10 Allowance Rate for Art Groups 2100, 3600, and e-commerce art units (3620s, 3680s, and 3690s) by Juristat
America’s Top Patent Prosecutors of 2011, Patent Buddy (2011)
Texas Rising Stars, Texas Super Lawyers (2005)

Presentations and Published Writings

Co-author, “Patent Prosecution for Litigators,” PLI Fundamentals of Patent Litigation (2013, 2014, 2015)
“Navigating the Details Behind Patent Law,” North American Windpower(2010)
Co-author, “A Practical Approach to Protection of Graphical User Interfaces in the United States of America,” Intellectual Property Owner’s Association White Paper (2009)
“Attorney-Client Privilege Issues Involving Opinion Letters on Patent Infringement, Enforcement, and Validity,” Patent Times (2002)

Representative Intellectual Property Matters

Post-Grant Review Proceedings
  • IPR2015-01728 (Petitioner)
  • IPR2014-00148 and IPR2014-00907 (Petitioner)
  • IPR2015-01739, IPR2015-01740, IPR2015-01741, IPR2015-01742, and IPR2015-01743 (Patent Owner)
  • IPR2016-00463, IPR2016-00464, IPR2016-00465, and IPR2016-00563 (Patent Owner)

Other Representative Matters

Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Standard Innovation Corp. v. Leloi AB, et al, (SDTX 4:11-cv-1172)
  • Plandraft, Inc. v. Providian Manor Homes, L.P., et al, (SDTX 4:10-cv-03739)
  • Prompt Medical Systems, L.P. v. IMEDICA Corporation (SDTX 4:2009-cv-01286)
  • Wood, et al v. B L Building Co., et al, (SDTX 4:2003-cv-00713)
  • Donald A. Gardner Architects, Inc. v. Oakwood Custom Homebuilders LLC, et al, (SDTX4:2005-cv-03066)
  • T-Netix Inc v. WorldCom Inc., et al, (EDTX 2:2001-cv-00189)
  • Dicon Fiberoptics v. Preciseley Technologies (NDCA 3:15-cv-01362)
  • Prosper Funding v. Prosper Capital, et al, (EDMO 4:15-cv-01408)
  • Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. 337-TA-823
  • LELO Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 13-1582-LP)
  • Lelo, Inc. v. Standard Innovation Corporation, et al., (NDCA 13-01393)
  • Recognia, Inc. v. MDIO Software CC et al, (SDTX 4:13-cv-02195)
  • Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd. v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, et al, (D. Dela. 12-781)