Robert P. Greenspoon

Top rated intellectual property litigation attorney in Chicago, Illinois

Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC
Robert P. Greenspoon
Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC

Practice Areas: Intellectual property litigation

Licensed in Illinois since: 1995

Education: The University of Michigan Law School

Selected to Super Lawyers: 2012 - 2023 Selected to Rising Stars: 2009 - 2010

Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC

333 N Michigan Ave
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60601 Visit website


Robert P. Greenspoon is a patent litigation attorney in Chicago, Illinois. A partner at the law firm of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, Mr. Greenspoon represents clients throughout the Greater Chicago metropolitan area.

Mr. Greenspoon has over 25 years of legal experience handling complex patent and intellectual property cases at the trial and appellate levels involving a wide variety of technologies. A registered attorney before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, he has successfully handled appeals at the federal level and before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Recognized for his high legal ability and ethical standards, Martindale-Hubbell awarded Mr. Greenspoon an AV Preeminent* peer review rating. This is the highest available rating, given to a small number of attorneys. Additionally, the National Law Journal included him on its “Trailblazer” list for intellectual property in 2017.

Dedicated to continuing legal education, Mr. Greenspoon is the author of several articles for various legal publications. He is a former chair of the Chicago Committee and prior member of the Chicago Council of Lawyers judicial evaluation committee and the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

In 1992, Mr. Greenspoon earned a bachelor’s degree in physics and the history and philosophy of science from the University of Chicago. He went on to graduate from the University of Michigan Law School in 1995.

Mr. Greenspoon holds a license to practice law before all Illinois state courts. He is also qualified to appear before several federal and appellate courts and the Supreme Court of the United States.

*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™ fall into two categories – legal ability and general ethical standards.

Practice areas

Intellectual property litigation
  • 100% Intellectual property litigation

First Admitted: 1995, Illinois

Professional Webpage:

Educational Background:
  • A.B., University of Chicago, Physics and History of Science, 1992
Special Licenses/Certifications:
  • Registered to Practice with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 40,004, 1995
Other Outstanding Achievements:
  • Argued winning patent litigation appeal in IMS Technology v. Haas Automation, 206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000)., 1999
  • Authored amicus brief for Telecommunications Systems, Inc. in the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Doll, advocating for purely prospective application of any affirmance of the lower court's decision., 2009
  • Argued winning patent litigation appeal in HyperPhrase v. Google (Federal Circuit, Appeal No. 2007-1125) (decided December 26, 2007) (non-precedential)., 2007
  • Argued winning patent litigation appeal in 1st Technology v. Bodog (Federal Circuit, Appeal No. 2008-1132, Oct. 8, 2008)., 2008
  • Authored amicus brief for Acacia Research Corporation and 1st Media, LLC, filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Therasense v. Becton Dickson, advocating tightening defense of inequitable conduct., 2010
  • In USPTO inter partes reexamination, through petition practice convinced USPTO to vacate reexamination proceeding filed against client's patent., 2011
  • Achieved rare dismissal on the pleadings of patent infringement case for client ValueClick, Inc. in Revenue Science v. ValueClick, Case No. 07-6980 (C.D. Cal.)., 2008
  • Authored amicus brief on behalf of seven retired naval officers in Supreme Court case i4i v. Microsoft, advocating clear and convincing standard of proof for proving patent invalidity., 2011
  • In USPTO inter partes reexamination, through petition practice convinced the USPTO to strike all of an opponent's comments and expert evidence filed against a patent undergoing reexamination., 2010
Bar/Professional Activity:
  • Member, Judicial Evaluation Committee, Chicago Council of Lawyers, 2007
  • Member, AIPLA, 2007
Scholarly Lectures/Writings:
  • This article refutes the prevailing belief that the KSR v. Teleflex 2007 Supreme Court decision on patent obviousness makes it easier to invalidate a patent in court., Co-author, Obviousness After KSR v. Teleflex: A Private Practice Perspective, July 2007 Intellectual Asset Management Magazine, reprinted July/August 2007 IP LItigator, 2007
  • Economic and policy arguments show that so-called "patent trolls" are healthy for innovation and consistent with the goals of the U.S. Constitution., Co-author, Are Patent Trolls Really Undermining the Patent System?, September/October 2006 IP Litigator, reprinted in 2008 Licensing Update (Aspen Publishers 2008), 2006
  • I explain what efficiencies the legal system will gain if the United States implements a patent small claims court.  I show that such courts have worked well in the United Kingdom, and I propose rulemaking mechanisms for bringing them into existence in the United States., Author, Is the United States Finally Ready for a Patent Small Claims Court?, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology Vol. 10(2) (Spring 2009), 2009
  • Many different kinds of entities use the United States patent system, from individual inventors, to start-ups, to patent assertion entities, to massive operating companies. Meanwhile, “reward theory,” “prospect theory,” and “commercialization theory” are three theories intended to explain the justifications for, or social costs and benefits of, a patent system.  Yet each theory barely acknowledges what goes on during actual patent acquisition, licensing or enforcement, such as transaction costs and litigation uncertainties. This article considers prior economic analyses of the patent system in this new light – patent economic theories, compared against the types of patent-using entities, compared against the costs and uncertainties of patent acquisition, licensing and enforcement., Co-author, Don't Assume a Can Opener: Confronting Patent Economic Theory with Licensing and Enforcement Reality, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 2011
  • At the DePaul University College of Law Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology, Robert Greenspoon spoke on a two-person panel about the upcoming Supreme Court argument in Microsoft v. i4i. The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago co-sponsored the event., Panelist, Panel Discussion on Supreme Court Patent Case, DePaul University College of Law Center for IP Law & Information Technology, Intellectual Property Law Association Of Chicago, 2011
  • At the Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property Law Society, Robert Greenspoon spoke on the differences in patent licensing and enforcement for different types of actors in the patent market. The Chicago-Kent Law & Economics Society co-sponsored the event., Speaker, Patent System Economics, Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property Law Society, 2011
  • At the Chicago Bar Association, Robert Greenspoon spoke on a three-person panel sponsored by the Intellectual Property Law Committee about the Supreme Court's recent decision on patent-eligible subject matter in Bilski v. Doll., Panelist, Patent-Eligible Subject Matter after Bilski, Chicago Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Committee, 2010
  • At the DePaul University College of Law Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology, Robert Greenspoon spoke on a four-person panel about the Supreme Court's recent decision on patent-eligible subject matter in Bilski v. Doll. The Federal Circuit Bar Association co-sponsored the event., Panelist, The Supreme Court's Decision in Bilski v. Doll, DePaul University College of Law Center for IP Law & Information Technology, Federal Circuit Bar Association, 2010
  • Article "Is the United States Finally Ready for a Patent Small Claims Court" selected for inclusion in Patent Law Review (2010) (Karen Tripp, ed.)., One of the Year's Best Patent Law Review Articles, Thomson West Publishers, 2010
Pro bono/Community Service:
  • President, Anchor Graphics NFP, 2000
  • Appointed counsel for employment discrimination plaintiff., 2010
  • Chair, Chicago Committee for the Chicago Society, a group of alumni philanthropists who support the University of Chicago and its academic mission., 2009
Representative Clients:
  • Conair Corporation, 2011
  • Co-chaired trial in Detroit, and obtained patent infringement and validity jury verdict, for 1st tier automotive supplier against its competitor, Lear v. Johnson Controls (E.D. Mich.), 2011
Industry Groups:
  • Science and technology.

Office location for Robert P. Greenspoon

333 N Michigan Ave
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 800-846-0762


12 Years Super Lawyers
2 Years Rising Stars
  • Super Lawyers: 2012 - 2023
  • Rising Stars: 2009 - 2010

Additional sources of information about Robert P. Greenspoon

Attorney resources for Robert P. Greenspoon

Page Generated: 0.14389109611511 sec