Stephen D. Kahn
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Stephen D. Kahn has practiced patent litigation and other areas of intellectual property law for more than 30 years, including the litigation of trade secret, copyright and trademark disputes and extensive counseling/transactional matters.

In the patent litigation arena, Mr. Kahn has litigated concerning electronic control systems, computer software, mechanical devices and manufacturing systems. He has been involved in new areas of patent law, focusing on patents involving financial services products and systems. In this regard, he was directly involved in a case entitled Mopex v. Chicago Stock Exchange et al., in which a patent allegedly covering a financial instrument and a process for trading such instrument was asserted against the Chicago Stock Exchange and many other defendants. In this case the firm represented Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith.

In addition to his patent experience, Mr. Kahn has been extensively involved in the use of copyright and trade secret law to protect computer software and has litigated several cases in this area of law, including Computer Associates v. Altai in which the firm represented CA.

On the counseling and transactional side, Mr. Kahn has had significant involvement in intellectual property and related issues arising in the context of the Internet, e-commerce and electronic signatures. He has also negotiated and drafted many computer software development and licensing agreements and outsourcing agreements covering all or parts of companies’ computer operations.

Mr. Kahn taught a course entitled “Special Problems in Patent Law” as a Visiting Lecturer at the Yale Law School in 1997; he has lectured on computer software protection at Yale and at the Stanford Law School; and he has just completed a term as Chairman of the Committee on Information Technology Law of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He is the author of several articles on the subjects of intellectual property protection of computer software, negotiating and drafting agreements involving computer software and the Internet and privileged communications.

Mr. Kahn’s academic background is as follows:

Yale University, B.E., Mechanical Engineering (summa cum laude) (1964).
Yale Law School, LL.B. (1968).

Representative Cases
  • Mopex v. Chicago Stock Exchange, Merrill Lynch et al. - Lead counsel for Merrill Lynch in a case in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois involving a patent allegedly covering a method of administering a financial instrument akin to an open end mutual fund.
  • Westvaco v. Viva Magnetics et al. - Lead counsel for Westvaco in patent infringement action involving DVD containers.
  • Pilot Pen v. Benny Industries - Lead counsel for Pilot Pen in trademark infringement action in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York involving Pilot marks.
  • American Airlines v. Northwest Airlines - Counsel for American Airlines in trade secret misappropriation action against Northwest Airlines relating to demand forecasting computer system, in Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota.
  • Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. - Lead counsel for Computer Associates in this landmark case in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the issue of copyright protection for computer software.
  • AJV Corp. v. Computer Associates International, Inc. - Lead counsel for Computer Associates in this trademark infringement action in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York. CA was found not to have infringed the plaintiff’s mark.
  • Refac International, Ltd. v. Computer Associates International, Inc. et al. - Lead counsel for Computer Associates in this patent infringement action in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. CA’s motion to dismiss the action on the ground of champerty was granted by the district court.
  • WordPerfect Corporation v. Financial Services Marketing Corp. - Lead counsel for WordPerfect in this trademark infringement action in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas in which the defendant’s tax preparation product named TaxPerfect was held to infringe the WordPerfect trademark.

Representative Speaking Engagements
  • “Software Licenses in Bankruptcy,” Association of the Bar of the City of New York, May 8, 2006.
  • “When Things Fall Apart: Resolving Disputes Between Outsourcing Vendors and Customers,” Practicing Law Institute, New York, New York, program entitled “The Outsourcing Revolution 2004,” November 9, 2004.
  • “Outsourcing Overview,” Weil, Gotshal & Manges IP/Media Practice Group Seminar, New York, NY, September 28, 2004.
  • Co-chairman of conference entitled “Outsourcing in the Financial Services Industry, and speaker, talk entitled “Software and Intellectual Property Issues in Outsourcing Transactions,” Law Seminars International, Stamford, CT, June 10-11, 2004.
  • “Software and Intellectual Property Issues in Outsourcing Transactions,” Law Seminars International, Los Angeles, CA, May 18, 2004.
  • “Software and Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy,” Weil, Gotshal & Manges IP/Media Practice Group Seminar, New York, NY, May 11, 2004.
  • “What Corporate Directors Need to Know about Intellectual Property.” Association of Corporate Patent Counsel, Puerto Rico, February 1, 2004.
  • “Legal Issues Surrounding Email – Attorney-Client Privilege and Trade Secrecy,” Bureau of National Affairs Institute, New York, NY, May 2, 2003.
  • “The Importance of Patent Law for Financial Services Businesses,” Weil, Gotshal Seminar, New York, NY June 10, 2002.
  • “New Developments in Trade Secret Law.” General Electric Company, Intellectual Property Practice Group Meeting, Croton-on Hudson, NY, May 29, 2002.
  • “Technology Forecast -- Navigating the Future of Software,” Panel Speaker, PriceWaterhouseCoopers Conference, New York, NY, May 8, 2002.
  • “E-Commerce: United States and European Union Standards for Electronic Contracting,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia, PA, December 14, 2001.
  • “Internet-Related Patent Issues; The U.S. Perspective,” Hawksmere Plc, Barcelona, Spain, July 9, 2001.
  • “Understanding Electronic Contracting: UCITA, E-Signature, Federal, State and Foreign Regulations: European E-Commerce Developments From A US Perspective,” Practicing Law Institute, New York, NY, April 2001.
  • “Business Method Patents,” The Conference Board, Coral Gables, Florida, February 23, 2001.

Representative Publications
  • S. D. Kahn and H. J. Gregory, “What Independent Directors Need to Know about Intellectual Property,” National Association of Corporate Directors, Directors Monthly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (January, 2004) .
  • S. D. Kahn, C. Peterman and S. Shelby, “Digital Signatures,” The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, Vol. 8, Nos. 11-12, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2000-2001).
  • S.D. Kahn, L. Cantos, J. Boyarski, “Legal Issues Surrounding E-Mail - Attorney-Client Privilege and Trade Secrecy,” The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, Vol. 8, Nos. 7-9 (2000).
  • S.D. Kahn, “Getting Connected: How Weil Gotshal Set Up An Internet Resource For GE,” Legal IT (June 2000).
 
Bar Admissions and Professional Associations

Mr. Kahn is admitted to practice in New York State and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Mr. Kahn is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, a member of its AdHoc Subcommittee on Internet Access to Court Records and Past Chairman of its Committee on Information Technology Law. He is also a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.
  • Education
    Yale University (B.E., 1964); Yale Law School (LL.B., 1968)
  • Litigation Partner
  • New York
  • +1 212 310 8820 tel
  • +1 212 310 8007 fax

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

This website is maintained by Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in New York, NY.
Copyright © 2013 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, All Rights Reserved. The contents of this website may contain
attorney advertising under the laws of various states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.