This week, I continue my written interview with leading patent litigator Steven Geiszler, U.S. chief intellectual property counsel for Huawei — a company that is a perennial headline maker on the patent litigation front. With good reason, considering the demonstrated depth and value of its SEP and non-SEP patent portfolio, driven in large part by the tremendous investments Huawei has built around 5G and related technologies. While many U.S. customers may not know about, or care about, Huawei’s business travails due to U.S. sanctions — sanctions that have resulted in Huawei’s precipitous fall in global market share for smartphones as just one consequence — there is no doubt that the company is a very relevant global IP superpower. And that the need for Huawei to get things right when it comes to balancing its U.S. docket of both offensive and defensive patent litigation is critical. Taken all together, it is clear that Steven occupies one of the most important in-house counsel seats in the patent world today. With much to share with this audience, especially for those considering a move in-house from Biglaw, or who are already finding themselves managing outside counsel in ongoing U.S. patent litigation.
Now to the remainder of my interview with Steven. As usual, I have added some brief commentary to Steven’s answers below but have otherwise presented his answers to my questions as he provided them.
Gaston Kroub: Jumping from Biglaw in-house is something many lawyers fantasize about but never do. Why should they consider it, even if they are doing well in their Biglaw roles?
Steven Geiszler: The talents and skills that allow one to do well inside a firm — for example, decision-making and organizational skills — may also be keys to success for in-house roles. Being able to quickly learn a broad range of legal areas is also valuable because in-house lawyers are often less specialized than their outside counterparts. But if one’s best skills are in client development or trial, then going in-house won’t be as fulfilling.
It is also important to understand that the spectrum of in-house jobs is very broad. There are different levels of seniority, responsibility, and specialization, and each role comes with its own set of complexities and requirements. Some people assume that in-house jobs are slower paced, 9-to-5 routines where in-house personnel simply assign everything substantive to outside counsel. Although such jobs do exist, I think that’s the exception. Likewise, many people assume that in-house jobs offer lower pay, but just as the kinds of in-house jobs vary widely, the compensation does too. Finally, there is the concern that going in-house might limit one’s future opportunities, yet I know many lawyers who returned to law firms after multiyear stints in-house. In my own case, my skill set has broadened and runs deeper than it did five years ago, when I left Biglaw. I am a better lawyer today, with experience I would not have obtained inside a law firm, because of my time in-house.
GK: Steven’s points about the diverse nature of in-house roles are well taken. In my experience, those of my former Biglaw colleagues that went in-house with a clear understanding of the expectations for the roles they were assuming ended up much happier than those who were just looking for a break from the billable hour. It is also worth reinforcing, at least in my view, Steven’s point about how in-house experience can make one a better lawyer — no matter what the next stop on their career path might end up being.
How important is it for Huawei to work with IP lawyers that believe in Huawei’s mission, even as the company has faced political challenges in terms of its activities in the U.S. market?
SG: It is essential to any lasting attorney-client relationship. That does not mean outside counsel must accept everything at face value; there must be transparency and robust dialogue. As the attorney-client relationship grows over time, this shared commitment should also strengthen.
Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Years ago, while I was a law firm associate, a senior partner instructed me, “Bill as much as you can”; he had become upset with the client and viewed them only as a short-term revenue stream. In another incident, a partner openly hoped for a client to lose the appeal of an important case. That mercenary approach to practicing law was something I could not embrace.
Those lessons and others stay with me today when I sort through possible partners. There will always be law firms or individual lawyers who simply want to go through the motions, maximize billing, and collect fees. But there will also be the firms and lawyers who truly share our commitment to prevailing based on the facts and the law — and do so at reasonable fees. We routinely work with some great outside counsel who are dedicated to our cases and share our outlook.
GK: Steven’s indictment of the “mercenary approach” to law rings very true, especially in an age of increasing billable hour rates and de-equitization of partners who fail to meet the aggressive business-generation targets set by ever-more profitable Biglaw firms. While those pressures are real — and can make finding firms to work with a challenge for Huawei and other leading companies — the U.S. market remains flush with well-trained and committed patent litigators ready and willing to put the needs of the client first, as Steven aptly notes. As with many things, communication is key to the success of a relationship and many potential issues between firms and their clients are often the cause of “transactional,” short-term approaches adopted by both sides of the relationship. In contrast, lasting links and greater long-term mutual success are often achieved by investing in fostering the “transparency and robust dialogue” Steven points to as the cornerstone of a “lasting attorney-client relationship.”
My thanks to Steven for the insights and cooperation, especially so close to his shepherding Huawei’s cases against Verizon to a successful midtrial settlement. I wish him the best of luck with continuing to lead the line for Huawei in the ever-changing world of US IP practice. There is no doubt that Huawei will continue to make news on the IP front — and I have no doubt that Steven’s ongoing contributions will serve the company in good stead going forward. I am always open to conducting interviews of this type with other IP thought leaders, so feel free to reach out if you have a compelling perspective to offer.
Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.
Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of 
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group 
Olga V. Mack is the CEO of 
