Robert Silverman

Attorney in Boston, MA
Robert J. Silverman is a partner and intellectual property lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. His experience encompasses a broad range of technologies, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, software, electronics, medical imaging systems, automobile engines, and sporting goods. Mr. Silverman is a member of the firm's IP Litigation and Electronics Practices and Technology, Medical Devices and Sports Industry Teams.

Prior to joining Foley, Mr. Silverman was a partner at Lowrie, Lando & Anastasi, LLP and a principal at Fish & Richardson P.C., where he counseled clients on a variety of intellectual property matters and represented them in litigation in state and federal courts and in the prosecution of patents before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

He is the co-author of Instruments and the Imagination, a widely acclaimed book about the historical development of scientific instruments, published by Princeton University Press. His interest in intellectual property law grew out of his study of the history of invention and scientific discovery - subjects he began examining as an undergraduate at Cornell University, where he also undertook a broad education in science and engineering disciplines.


Mr. Silverman was selected for inclusion in the 2005 and 2006 Massachusetts Super Lawyers - Rising Stars® lists, a designation granted to approximately 2.5 percent of the best up-and-coming attorneys in the state. He is also the co-chair of the Intellectual Property Law Committee for the Boston Bar Association.


Mr. Silverman graduated from the New York University School of Law (J.D.), where he was a member of the Moot Court Board and the Jessup International Law Moot Court Team and was awarded the ASCAP Nathan Burkan Memorial Prize for Copyright Law; the University of Washington (Ph.D., history of science and technology); and Cornell University (B.A., cum laude, history).


Mr. Silverman is admitted to practice before the state and federal courts in Massachusetts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First and Federal Circuits, the District of Colorado, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and he is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Representative Cases
V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group S.p.A. et al. Won summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of manufacture of Rollerblade brand in line skates. This multi-patent case threatened to enjoin the majority of the Rollerblade product line. Briefed and argued the victorious appeal, reported at 401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which the Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment with a unanimous precedential opinion commenting on a cutting edge issue of the role of a patent's cited prior art in construing the patent claims.
Evans Cooling Systems, Inc. v. General Motors Corp. Trade secret litigation regarding misappropriated engine cooling system technology. Demonstrated, through physical, testimonial, and forensic evidence, that GM engineering personnel forged documents, committed perjury, and falsified evidence in order to support allegations of prior development. Litigation included landmark Supreme Court of Connecticut decision - reported at 277 Conn. 496, 893 A.2d 371 (2006) - which was the first decision by the highest court of any state to determine the existence of a common law right to a trial by jury, for trade secret misappropriation. The decision was named in the Connecticut Law Tribune's annual review of the most important decisions issued in the past year by the state's highest court - the only intellectual property decision so honored.
Amersham Biosciences Corp. v PerkinElmer, Inc. (D.N.J.) / PerkinElmer LAS, Inc. v. Amersham Biosciences Corp. (D. Mass.). Represented manufacturer of life sciences instrumentation and biochemical assay products in multi-patent litigation concerning techniques and equipment used in drug discovery. Cases settled on favorable terms following successful court rulings, including establishment of waiver of privileged communications showing inequitable conduct by the opposing party.
Bio-Mimetics, Inc. v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc. (D. Mass.). Won summary judgment victory for plaintiff in a complex dispute concerning technology rights to a bioadhesive drug delivery system.
Beck Systems, Inc. v. ManageSoft Corp. (N.D. Ill.). Defended patent infringement claims against a vendor of systems for managing and distributing software applications throughout an enterprise. Case settled on favorable terms after establishing strong invalidity defenses to the asserted patents.
K-2 Corporation v. Rollerblade, Inc. (W.D. Wash.). Overcame two separate preliminary injunction motions that threatened the introduction of new product lines, in multi-patent litigation between major in-line skate competitors. Case settled on favorable terms after establishing successful defenses to the opposing party's patents and infringement of the client's asserted patent in related litigation.
Datamize, LLC v. Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC (E.D. Tex.). Defended Fidelity against patent infringement claims from two patents concerning internet and graphical user interfaces. Case settled on favorable terms.
Fischer Imaging Corp. v. Trex Medical Corp. (D. Colo.) / Fischer Imaging Corp. v. Hologic, Inc. (D. Mass.). Represented manufacturer of medical imaging and computer-guided breast biopsy equipment in multi-patent litigation involving complex issues of disputed inventorship and patent correction and continuation practices. Cases settled after multiple Markman hearings and summary judgment motions.
Harris Corp. v. Siemens AG. (E.D. Va.) Represented Siemens in patent litigation involving 26 patents related to semiconductor memory technologies. Case settled on favorable terms after successful summary judgment rulings.
Mitek Surgical Products, Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)Defended accused infringer in a patent case on ligament suture anchors used in orthopedic surgery. Case won on summary judgment.

Recent Publications and Presentations
• "Trade and Intellectual Property Issues in Global Recovering Economies," Federal Circuit Bar Association, International Series, Toronto, Ontario (September 17, 2013)
• "Best Practices and Ethical Issues in Intellectual Property Litigation," Boston Bar Association (November 15, 2012)
• "Akamai-McKesson: The En Banc Federal Circuit Takes On 'Divided Infringement,'" Practicing Law Institute Briefing (October 2, 2012)
• "Patent Law Update 2012," 15th Annual New England Intellectual Property Law Conference 2012, Boston, MA (June 13, 2012)
• "Patent Law Update 2011," 14th Annual New England Intellectual Property Law Conference 2011, Boston, MA (June 16, 2011)
• "The Development of Patent Claim Construction Theory and Practice," Law Seminars International, Seattle, WA (July 16, 2008) and Chicago, IL (Feb. 13, 2009)
• "Proposed Patent Legislation Needs Reform of Its Own," Mass High Tech: The Journal of New England Technology (Feb. 29, 2008)
• "Tactics for Mastering Markman Issues," Center for Advanced Legal Studies, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA; sponsored with the Boston Patent Law Association and Federal Circuit Bar Association (October 20, 2006)

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating N/A help_info

Areas of Law

  • Medical Devices
  • Sports
  • Technology
  • Electronics
  • Trademark, Copyright & Advertising Litigation
  • IP Litigation
  • Patent Litigation
  • Patent Office Trials
  • Trade Secret Noncompete Litigation


Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1996, Massachusetts
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First and Federal Circuits
U.S. District Courts, District of Colorado, the Eastern District of Wisconsin
registered to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law School Attended

New York University School of Law

University Attended

Cornell University
History, cum laude

University of Washington
History of Science and Technology

Contact Information






Send email to Robert Silverman

Office Information
Robert Silverman
 111 Huntington Avenue,
Boston, MA 02199


Foley & Lardner LLP (Boston, Massachusetts)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.