Overview

About Taryn

Taryn Williams is Of Counsel in the firm’s Litigation group. She represents clients in complex business litigation including unfair competition, trade secret, antitrust, contract disputes, and class actions, and in actions brought by state agencies, including allegations of violations of consumer protection statutes. Taryn also has substantial experience in intellectual property matters, including patent and trademark litigation in both federal and state courts, and before the U.S. International Trade Commission in trade remedy action brought under Section 337 of the Tariff Act. She has represented clients in a wide variety of technologies, including semiconductor, automotive, telecommunications, and consumer electronics products.

Before joining Stoel Rives, Taryn was a senior associate with King & Spalding in Washington, D.C. (2006-2015), a summer associate for the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Appellate Division (summer 2005), and a summer associate with Shearn Delamore & Co. law firm, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (summer 2004).

Expand to Read More + See Less -
Experience

Experience

Representative Work
  • Represent plaintiff, a large event management software company, in federal district court and multiple arbitration proceedings involving trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, and breach of employment agreements against a company founded by a former executive and staffed with several former developer, sales, and executive-level employees. 
  • Obtained favorable arbitration award of over €640 million for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract related to an €800 million securities asset purchase agreement. Final Award issued by three-person arbitration panel under the AAA International Centre for Dispute Resolution following hearings in the summer and fall of 2019.
  • Represent a consumer products client in Section 337 investigation before the International Trade Commission (ITC) seeking a general exclusion order to prevent the importation of products infringing our client’s patents, including multiple direct competitors’ products. Following the hearing in early 2019, the ITC determined not to review the favorable Initial Determination of the Administrative Law Judge, finding a violation of Section 337 and recommending a general exclusion order that would bar any party from importing infringing products into the United States.
  • Obtained favorable results in unlawful trade practices enforcement actions brought by Attorneys General in multiple states against the maker of 5-hour ENERGY®. Obtained complete defense verdict after three-week trial in action brought by the Oregon Attorney General alleging violations of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Prevailed on significant claims following three-week trial in action brought by the Washington Attorney General alleging violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
International Trade Commission Section 337 Litigation
  • Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124—represented complainant SnapRays LLC d/b/a SnapPower.
  • Certain Integrated Transporters, Components Thereof, and Manuals Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-935—represented respondents PowerUnion (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.; Ninebot (Tianjin) Technology Co.; Ltd.; and Ninebot, Inc.
  • Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets II, Inv. No. 337-TA-905—represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.
  • Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-873—represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.
  • Certain Mobile Handset Devices and Related Touch Keyboard Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-864—represented Personal Communications Devices.
  • Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Technologies,  LLC v. MediaTek USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)—Plaintiff dismissed all claims with prejudice against represented defendant Hewlett Packard Company in patent litigation involving error correction codes for optical disks.
  • Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. v. Schrader Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Mich.)—achieved favorable settlement on behalf of Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. in patent infringement litigation involving tire pressure monitoring systems.
  • Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. (W.D. Va.; E.D. Mich.)—achieved favorable settlement on behalf of Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. in patent infringement litigation involving tire pressure monitoring systems.
  • Certain CMOS Image Sensors and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-846—represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.
  • Certain Portable Communication Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-827—represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.
  • Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-724—represented Advanced Micro Devices.
  • Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-710—represented Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp.
  • Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing the Same, Including Memory Modules, Inv. No. 337-TA-707—represented Infineon AG.
  • Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-65—represented Qimonda AG.
  • Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-664—represented Spansion, Inc.
  • Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-648—represented Qimonda AG.
  • Certain Nitrile Gloves, Inv. No. 337-TA-608—represented Tillotson Corporation.
  • Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-605—represented Broadcom Corporation.
  • Certain Lighting Products, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-594—represented Cooper Lighting.
Appellate Litigation
  • Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 734 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2014)—represented the American Furniture Manufacturers’ Committee for Legal Trade in successful defense of the constitutionality of the Continues Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act.
  • Interdigital Comm’n, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013)—represented Hewlett Packard Company in amicus brief in support of appellant on Section 337 domestic industry issue.
  • SFK USA, Inc. v. United States, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009)—represented the American Furniture Manufacturers’ Committee in successful defense of the constitutionality of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act.
  • PSC-VSMPO-Avisma v. United States, 688 F.3d 751 (Fed. Cir. 2012)—represented US Magnesium in an appeal that reversed the U.S. Court of International Trade’s antidumping decision on a cost accounting issue.
  • GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 688 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011)—represented Bridgestone Tire in challenge to the application of the countervailing duty law to non-market-economy countries.
  • Pro bono representation of Virginia death row inmate in a habeas corpus challenge to his death sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel, which included presenting the testimony of multiple witness in an evidentiary hearing in federal district court.
Expand to Read More + See Less -
Honors

Honors & Activities

  • Member, Intellectual Property Law, International Law, Litigation Sections, American Bar Association
  • Member, DC Bar Association
  • Member, Junior League of Portland
  • King & Spalding Pro Bono Service Award, 2006-2012
  • Thomas Carl Damewood Evidence Award 
Expand to Read More + See Less -
Insights & Presentations

Insights & Presentations

  • “Knocking Out Knock Offs: Protecting Your Brand and Your IP from Infringers and Counterfeits,” Utah Innovator Series, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sept. 2018
  • “Staying Sane When Dealing With Financially Distressed Counterparties,” Portland, Oregon, July 2017
  • “What Is Really Protected? FRE 408 Settlement Evidence & Attorney-Client Privilege for Corporate Counsel,” Portland, Oregon, Jan. 2017
  • Chapter 106: Practice at the International Trade Commission, Intellectual Property Counseling and Litigation (Matthew Bender 2014) (co-author)
  • “ITC Focus,” Managing Intellectual Property, U.S. Patent Forum 2013, Washington, D.C., Mar. 19, 2013
  • “A Surge in Trade Secret Misappropriation Cases at the ITC,” Law360, Feb. 1, 2013.
  • Chapter 106: Practice at the International Trade Commission, Intellectual Property Counseling and Litigation (Matthew Bender 2010)
  • “The Current Outlook for Patent Litigation for 2009,” Institute of Continuing Legal Education, The 14th Annual Intellectual Property Law Institute, Los Cabos, Mexico, Nov. 13, 2008.



Expand to Read More + See Less -
×
Saved Pages

Use the arrows to arrange content.  Download pages as a .pdf file or share links via email..

{{ item.Title }} {{ item.AttorneyPosition }}, {{ item.AttorneyLocation }} , C. {{ item.AttorneyCell }} , P. {{ item.AttorneyPhone }} , F. {{ item.AttorneyFax }} {{ item.TypeText }} Remove
You have no pages saved
            {{ state | json }}