Kevin J. Malaney

Partner

Kevin Malaney helps innovative, high-tech companies with all manner of intellectual property (IP) issues and focuses on pre-litigation counseling and litigation related to such issues.

Kevin counsels clients in pre-litigation issues involved in IP enforcement and clearance through risk-assessment, agreement review, and due diligence. He assists his clients with respect to a wide variety of IP assets and disputes including patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and other IP disputes.

Kevin’s case experience spans many diverse technologies with a primary focus on computer software and hardware disputes. Exemplary technologies include process control software, building control and security software systems, smartphone applications, VoIP, communication standards such as 802.11, biometric encryption and decryption, and media content delivery applications. Through this experience, Kevin has handled cases involving standards-setting organizations as well as parallel U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proceedings.

Prior to law school, Kevin was a software engineer at Oracle Corporation, where he designed and implemented complex software applications for aggregating, presenting, and analyzing large data sets. A self-described “source code expert functioning as an attorney,” clients appreciate Kevin’s informed counsel, which provides valuable insight into hardware and software issues that arise with products on the market.

Kevin is a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group and the Innovative Technology Sector.

Affiliations

  • Member of the American Bar Association
  • Member of the State Bar of Wisconsin
  • Member of the Wisconsin Intellectual Property Law Association

Community Involvement

  • Milwaukee Academy of Science (MAS)
    • Member of the board of directors
    • Member of the Executive Committee
    • Chair of the Fund Development Committee
  • Member of the Fundraising Cabinet for the “I Have a Dream” Foundation Milwaukee
  • ACTS Housing/ACTS Lending
    • Former member of the board of directors
    • Former chair of the Lending Advisory Committee
  • Pro bono work for MAS, ACTS Housing/ACTS Lending, Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, and Lawyers for the Creative Arts
10 September 2024 IP Litigation Current

Alice Patent Eligibility Analysis Divergence Before USPTO and District Court

The Mayo/Alice framework for determining subject matter eligibility of patents under 35 U.S.C. §101 has long since antagonized both patent prosecutors and litigators alike, causing significant uncertainty in the realm of software-based technology and innovation.
09 May 2018 Blogs

An Opportunity for Clarity on Assignor Estoppel: Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA

In patent litigation, assignor estoppel is a common law doctrine that can dramatically alter the rights of both parties involved – when applicable it is dispositive on the issue of patent validity.
01 February 2018 Press Releases

Foley Elects New Partners

Foley & Lardner LLP announced today that the following of counsel and senior counsel have been elected to the partnership, effective February 1, 2018.
10 November 2017 Press Releases

Foley Attorneys Named 2017 Wisconsin Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Foley & Lardner LLP announced that 19 attorneys have been named 2017 Wisconsin Super Lawyers and 12 attorneys have been named 2017 Wisconsin Rising Stars. All recognized attorneys are based in Foley’s Madison and Milwaukee offices.
06 October 2017 Events

Foley's 13th Annual IP Conference

Join your peers at the Foley’s 13th Annual IP Conference “Forging Ahead: Strategies for the New Unknown” for interactive discussions and practical insights to boost your strategic agility.
15-16 June 2017 Events

TC Heartland: A Deep-Dive Into Next-Level Issues for Companies in an Integrated Economy

Please join Foley for our upcoming web conference, which will address such next-level in light of the May 22, 2017 decision in <EM>TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC</EM>, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decades-old Federal Circuit rule that effectively allowed a patent holder to file suit anywhere a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.