add items to your
binder to email or
print all at once
Items In Binder
Site Lawyers

Richard J. Stark

Partner, Litigation

Richard J. Stark is recognized as a leading litigator in complex business litigation. Mr. Stark has particular expertise in software, computer systems, microelectronics and standard-setting organizations, as well as deep litigation experience in the pharmaceuticals industry. Mr. Stark has a master’s degree in Computer Science (machine learning) and is a registered patent attorney. He has represented clients across a range of industries, including technology, life sciences and banking. Spanning nearly three decades, his broad litigation practice and expertise encompasses multifaceted and multijurisdictional business disputes in the realm of intellectual property, antitrust, securities and general commercial litigation, as well as arbitration.

Mr. Stark’s clients have included Qualcomm,, IBM, Xerox, Bristol‑Myers Squibb, Sanofi‑Synthelabo, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan Laboratories and Credit Suisse.

His representative matters include:

Intellectual Property and Antitrust Litigation

  • Representation of Qualcomm Incorporated in an array of high‑stakes global disputes and investigations concerning patent licensing and modem chipset businesses, including:
    • Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated (S.D. Cal.): Antitrust action filed by Apple against Qualcomm in California federal court. Qualcomm’s counterclaims against Apple included tortious interference with contract and declarations that Qualcomm had satisfied and discharged its FRAND commitments and that Apple was not a willing licensee. Qualcomm also filed a breach of contract suit against four iPhone manufacturers alleging that the defendants failed to pay Qualcomm royalties due under their license agreements (Qualcomm Incorporated v. Compal Electronics Inc. et al. (S.D. Cal.)). The cases were resolved in April 2019 as part of a global settlement reached by the parties. The settlement resulted in multiple billions of dollars in revenues for Qualcomm and includes a six‑year patent license agreement and multiyear chipset supply agreement. Upon the settlement’s announcement, the Financial Times declared our client, Qualcomm, “the clear winner.”
    • Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc. (N.D. Cal. and 9th Circuit): Cravath is defending Qualcomm in a suit filed by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in California federal court alleging violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and seeking a permanent injunction against Qualcomm.
    • International Proceedings: Mr. Stark represented Qualcomm in connection with investigations and litigations in China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea and Europe concerning alleged anticompetitive practices and licensing terms.
    • Qualcomm v. Meizu (China): Mr. Stark advised Qualcomm in connection with patent infringement actions filed against Chinese mobile phone manufacturer Meizu in the Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing and Shanghai.
    • Exelis Inc. v. Cellco Partnership (D. Del.): Defended Qualcomm against patent infringement claims related to GPS technology.
    • Broadcom Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated (C.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.): After Qualcomm suffered a loss in a patent infringement jury trial, Cravath took over Qualcomm’s defense in the remedy and appeals phase, winning reversal of the infringement verdict as to one patent and securing a favorable overall settlement.
  • Representation of in patent infringement litigation:
    • Vivint, Inc. v. Inc. (D. Utah): Defending in strategic patent infringement litigation brought by its competitor Vivint, Inc.
    • Inc. v. Vivint, Inc. (PTAB and Fed. Cir.): Representing in multiple inter partes reviews against Vivint. Won decisions of unpatentability as to 116 claims across five of Vivint’s patents. Won affirmance in the Federal Circuit of all unpatentability determinations and reversal of the PTAB’s claim construction as to certain additional claims, leading to further unpatentability proceedings.
    • EcoFactor, Inc. v., Inc. (D. Mass., W.D. Tex. and ITC): Representing in patent infringement litigation and in an ITC investigation initiated by EcoFactor concerning certain smart thermostats, smart HVAC systems and components thereof.
  • Representation of Mylan Laboratories in patent infringement and related litigation:
    • Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (S.D.N.Y., Fed. Cir., U.S. Supreme Court): Represented Mylan Laboratories in connection with a patent infringement action concerning Copaxone®, a drug used to treat multiple sclerosis.
    • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Sebelius (D.D.C.): Represented Mylan Laboratories as intervenor in Teva’s action against the FDA. Won dismissal of all claims five days after the case was filed.
  • Representation of IBM in antitrust and intellectual property litigation:
    • QSGI Inc. v. IBM Global Financing, et al. (S.D. Fla.): Represented IBM in a multimillion‑dollar antitrust suit brought by mainframe computer reseller QSGI in Florida federal court. Won dismissal of all claims.
    • Neon Enterprise Software v. IBM (W.D. Tex.): Represented IBM in a lawsuit featuring claims by Neon Enterprise Software and counterclaims by IBM in Texas federal court. Won a permanent injunction against Neon and dismissal of all claims against IBM.
    • Data General Corporation v. IBM (D. Mass.): Represented IBM in patent infringement litigation concerning computer architecture and programming languages. Data General asserted seven patents from the “Fountainhead Project” referenced in Tracy Kidder’s The Soul of a New Machine. IBM counterclaimed with seven patent infringement counts. The case was resolved after IBM won key claim construction rulings in the first phase of the trial.
  • Representation of Xerox in patent infringement litigation:
    • Xerox Corporation v. Google Inc. and Yahoo! (D. Del.): Represented Xerox as plaintiff in a patent infringement action against Google and Yahoo! in Delaware federal court relating to search query technology. Resolved through a favorable settlement.
  • Representation of Cummins Engine in patent infringement litigation:
    • Cummins Engine v. Detroit Diesel (S.D. Ind.): Represented Cummins Engine in a patent infringement action against Detroit Diesel relating to software for controlling diesel engine functions. Resolved through favorable settlement.
  • Representation of Bristol‑Myers Squibb in patent infringement and antitrust litigation:
    • In re Plavix Antitrust Litigation (S.D. Ohio): Represented Bristol‑Myers Squibb in four antitrust actions filed in the Ohio federal court alleging violations of the antitrust laws in connection with patent infringement litigation concerning the anti‑platelet drug Plavix®. Won dismissal of all four actions.
    • Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y. and Fed. Cir.): Represented Bristol‑Myers Squibb, together with Sanofi‑Aventis, as plaintiffs in patent infringement litigation in New York federal court relating to Plavix®, which was, at the time, the world’s second‑best‑selling prescription drug with annual sales of approximately $8 billion. Won on the merits at trial, resulting in a permanent injunction and a damages award of $442 million, which the Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.
    • Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (D.D.C. and Fed. Cir.): Represented Bristol‑Myers Squibb in connection with Mylan’s action against the FDA. District court granted an injunction against the FDA. Cravath won reversal of the injunction in the Federal Circuit.
    • Vista Healthplan, Inc. v. Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. (D.D.C.): Represented Bristol‑Myers Squibb in antitrust litigation alleging that the company misused its patents on Taxol®, an anti‑cancer drug, to exclude their generic competitors. Resolved through favorable settlement.
    • Taxol® Patent Infringement Litigation (D.N.J.): Represented Bristol‑Myers Squibb in multiple patent infringement actions concerning Taxol®. Resolved through favorable settlement.
    • NaPro Biotherapeutics v. Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. (D. Colo.): Defended Bristol‑Myers Squibb against patent infringement claims relating to Taxol®. Won dismissal of all claims.
    • Xechem v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (N.D. Ill. and 7th Circuit): Defended Bristol‑Myers Squibb against purported antitrust claims relating to Taxol®. Secured a victory on all claims.
  • Representation of GlaxoSmithKline in patent infringement litigation:
    • Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del.): Represented Glaxo Group in patent infringement actions in which generic drug manufacturers challenged the company’s patent for Imitrex®, a highly successful anti‑migraine agent. The court granted partial summary judgment to Glaxo. The parties subsequently agreed on a settlement favorable to Glaxo.
    • Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Bayer AG, et al. (D. Del.): Defended GlaxoSmithKline in patent infringement action concerning erectile dysfunction drugs.


  • Representation of Qualcomm in securities litigation:
    • In re Qualcomm Incorporated Securities Litigation (S.D. Cal.): Cravath is representing Qualcomm and certain of its directors and officers in a consolidated purported shareholder class action suit in California federal court filed in the wake of antitrust investigations and litigation concerning the company’s patent licensing and modem chipset businesses.
  • Representation of Credit Suisse in its residential mortgage‑backed securities (“RMBS”) litigation, eliminating billions of dollars in potential liability:
    • Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Credit Suisse Holdings (S.D.N.Y.)
    • Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse Securities (S.D.N.Y.)
    • Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (Colonial Bank) v. Credit Suisse Securities (Alabama state court)
    • Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Credit Suisse Securities (Washington state court)
  • Representation of IBM in securities litigation:
    • In re IBM Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.): Represented IBM in purported class action securities fraud litigation in New York federal court alleging that IBM knew but failed to disclose that China would restrict purchases from IBM in purported retaliation for a U.S. surveillance program disclosed by Edward Snowden. Won dismissal of all claims.
  • Representation of Bristol‑Myers Squibb in securities litigation:
    • In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (ImClone) (S.D.N.Y.): Defended Bristol‑Myers Squibb in putative class action securities litigation. The court granted our motion to dismiss, throwing out the securities litigation in its entirety.
    • In re Bristol-Myers Squibb (Vanlev) (D.N.J.): Defended Bristol‑Myers Squibb in putative class action securities fraud litigation alleging that the company disseminated false and misleading information with respect to its drug Vanlev™. Resolved through a favorable settlement.
  • Representation of Hugo Boss in securities litigation:
    • Froese v. Hugo Boss (S.D.N.Y.): Represented Hugo Boss in a purported securities fraud case. Won dismissal of all claims.

General Litigation and Arbitration

  • Representation of the City of New York in tort cases:
    • Rapps v. City of New York (N.Y. Supreme Court and Appellate Division): Represented the City of New York in a constitutional case involving the alleged demolition of a building without notice and opportunity to be heard. Jury rendered a verdict finding the City liable, but fixing damages at $1. Affirmed on appeal.
    • City of New York tort case (N.Y. Supreme Court): Represented the City of New York as respondeat superior in case of alleged intentional tort. Jury trial resulted in a favorable damages verdict for the City.
  • Representation of IBM as claimant in false advertising arbitrations:
    • IBM v. Oracle: Represented IBM in three arbitrations concerning false advertising. Secured arbitral determinations in favor of IBM in all cases.
  • Representation of Qualcomm in a contract arbitration:
    • Nokia Corp. v. Qualcomm Incorporated (AAA): Represented Qualcomm in an arbitration concerning contractual and equitable estoppel claims. Secured arbitral award in favor of Qualcomm on all claims.
  • Represented clients in confidential contract arbitrations, including:
    • Confidential Arbitration (AAA): Represented a medical products company in an arbitration concerning an IP license agreement. Secured a victory for our client.


Mr. Stark has been recognized by numerous professional publications including Benchmark Litigation, IAM Patent, Lawdragon and The Legal 500 US. He and his colleagues earned the Firm distinction as “Law Firm of the Year” in intellectual property litigation in the U.S. News—Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” 2011‑2012 survey of the best law firms in the United States. The publication also ranked Cravath in the highest tier for patent litigation and intellectual property litigation from 2011 through 2019.

Mr. Stark is Vice Chair of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law’s Division of Specialized IP and previously was Chair of the Section’s Committee on Antitrust Interface with IP Rights. He is also a member of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

Mr. Stark’s publications and talks in the area of intellectual property and antitrust law include:

  • “Fed. Circ. GE Case Reveals IPR Appellants’ Standing Burden,” Law360 (October 2019)
  • Co‑author of the ABA’s Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook (Second Edition)
  • Co-author of the ABA’s forthcoming handbook on patent misuse
  • “Debunking the Smallest Salable Unit Theory,” CPI Antitrust Chronicle (July 2015)
  • “The Royalty Stacking Supposition,” CPI Antitrust Chronicle (March 2015)
  • “Managing Fallout from ‘Bilski,’ ‘Mayo’ and ‘Alice,’” New York Law Journal (January 2015)

In the federal system, Mr. Stark is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, the D.C. Circuit, the Second, Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Northern, Southern and Central Districts of California, and the District of D.C. (among others).

Born in New York, Mr. Stark received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1986, with concentrations in Government and Computer Science; a J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1991; and an M.S. in Computer Science from the Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science in 2014.

Mr. Stark joined Cravath in 1991 and was elected a partner in 1998.

Mr. Stark is admitted only in New York, California and Connecticut.

+1 (212) 474-1564
+1 (212) 474-3700