Richard S. Florsheim

Retired Partner


Richard Florsheim is a retired partner and intellectual property lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. For the past 20 years, Mr. Florsheim's practice has been devoted exclusively to the litigation and alternative dispute resolution of patent infringement and other intellectual property disputes. His experience included working on cases involving a wide variety of technologies, including electronics, medical devices, optics and optical communications, wireless communications, industrial controls, and semiconductors.

Since 1974, Mr. Florsheim has devoted his professional career to the litigation of intellectual property cases and other complex civil litigation. He has tried over two dozen cases before judges and juries. Mr. Florsheim has served as lead counsel in over 60 patent infringement cases involving products and services covering a broad range of technologies in various district courts, in the Court of Federal Claims and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He has also argued over a dozen appeals from district court decisions in patent infringement litigations before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. He has had substantial experience representing clients in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, including the negotiation of litigation settlements and the conduct of arbitration proceedings, mediations and summary jury trials.

Thought Leadership

Mr. Florsheim was the chairman of the subcommittee of the American Intellectual Property Law Association responsible for drafting the AIPLA’s first model jury instructions for nationwide use in patent infringement litigation. He has lectured on the subject of patent litigation at numerous national seminars and has authored or co-authored a number of publications on the subjects of patent law and patent litigation.


  • BTI Client Service All-Stars list (2014); this elite group of standout attorneys — identified solely through unprompted client feedback — are recognized as delivering the absolute best client service; and Mr. Florsheim was one of only a dozen intellectual property litigators in the United States to have received this recognition in 2014 
  • The International Who's Who of Patent Lawyers (2013) 
  • IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners (2013-2016) 
  • Wisconsin Super Lawyers® lists (2005-2015) 
  • Milwaukee Intellectual Property Litigation “Lawyer of the Year” (2013 and 2017) and Patent Litigation “Lawyer of the Year” (2013 and 2015) by The Best Lawyers in America©
  • Peer Review Rated as AV® Preeminent™, the highest performance rating in Martindale-Hubbell's peer review rating system 
  • The Best Lawyers in America©, current edition 
  • Who’s Who in the World, current edition 
  • Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, current edition 
  • Featured among 10 leading IP lawyers in the U.S. in Inside the Minds: Leading Intellectual Property Lawyers: IP Experts Share Their Knowledge on the Art & Science of Intellectual Property Law (Aspatore Books, March 2002)

Professional Memberships

Mr. Florsheim is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, Federal Circuit Bar Association, and the Patent, Trademark and Copyright Section of the American Bar Association.

Firm Leadership

Mr. Florsheim is former chair of the firm’s China Practice, and a former member of the firm’s Management Committee. He is former chair of the firm’s Industry Teams and Intellectual Property Departments, and previously served as leader of the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice.


Mr. Florsheim is a 1971 graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He received his J.D., magna cum laude (first in his class), from Marquette University Law School in 1974.

Representative Matters

Showing of
Foley secured for Avago Technologies, a leading supplier of analog interface components for communications, industrial, and consumer applications, an Order affirming the Final Determination, Cease and Desist Order, and Exclusion Order issued by the International Trade Commission upon finding a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in favor of Avago Technologies issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The ITC upheld the validity of Avago's patents and finding that Emcore Corporation infringed Avago's intellectual property by importing and selling certain optoelectronics products used in optical communication systems, including parallel fiber optics products and components made and sold by Emcore and used for data communications for core routing and enterprise networking. Emcore appealed the validity and enforceability of Avago's intellectual property and the issuance of the Exclusion Order, which was rejected summarily and quickly on Monday, November 14, 2011, by the Federal Circuit after oral argument on Thursday, November 10, 2011.
In August 2011, three weeks short of trial, Foley attorneys obtained a very favorable settlementof pending trademark infringement and unfair competition suit brought against Sloan Valve byarch-competitor Zurn Industries. Zurn’s claims were dismissed with prejudice and Sloan is freeto continue to use the disputed term “pint” to describe its high efficiency urinals. In 2008, Zurnfiled the suit alleging Sloan’s uses of “Sloan 1 Pint Urinal System” and “Sloan Pint Urinal”infringed Zurn’s federally registered marks THE PINT also for pint urinals, as well as ZURN 1,ZURN ONE and ZURN ONE SYSTEMS. Sloan filed counterclaims seeking cancellation ofZurn’s THE PINT registration, and for sales of plumbing products bearing counterfeit copies oftheir BIOGARD trademark. The district court entered judgment against Zurn, including thegrant of monetary relief and a permanent injunction in early 2009. In March 2011, the courtsignificantly narrowed the issues to be tried in ruling on Sloan’s July 2010 summary judgmentmotion, including dismissing Zurn’s actual damages claims, finding Zurn could prove noincidences of actual confusion and no likelihood as to the source of the respective parties’ pinturinals. Facing a jury trial solely upon Zurn’s late made claim of initial interest confusioncoupled with a claim for an accounting of wrongful profits, and Sloan’s trademark cancellationcounterclaim and affirmative defenses, including fair use, Zurn sued for peace.
Successfully represented defendants in a case concerning a patent relating to optical projectors used in head-up displays. The case decided on summary judgment (non-infringement) in the defendants’ favor and was settled favorably.