Intellectual Property



The Intellectual Property Practice Group’s lawyers offer strategic insights and solutions to companies facing complex intellectual property issues.  We understand that such issues must be considered in the context of larger business needs and interests.  We partner with our clients to develop strategies that effectively and efficiently advance and protect their interests.  We have deep capabilities across all categories of IP litigation and transactional matters, including:

  • Patents
  • Trademark
  • Trade dress
  • False advertising
  • Anti-dilution
  • Counterfeiting
  • Copyright
  • Trade secrets
  • Unfair competition

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s deep bench of trial lawyers with technical backgrounds, advanced degrees and industry experience provides the necessary insight to develop and defend against sophisticated claims in a wide range of industries and complex technologies.

Our litigators are recognized throughout the industry as leaders in prosecuting, defending and trying IP claims in federal and state courts, before administrative bodies including the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as well as before domestic and international arbitration panels.  The intellectual property group, as well as many Gibson Dunn IP litigators, are recognized by top legal publications.

IAM Patent 2020 recognized Gibson Dunn among the top patent practices nationally and in California, New York, Texas and Washington, D.C.  Managing IP Handbook, 2019 edition, recognized Gibson Dunn among the top International Trade Commission Litigation and Patent Contentious firms in the United States, and the publication recognized the firm with two awards at its Americas Awards 2020, selecting us as the United States Patent Contentious Firm of the Year and recognizing the Gibson Dunn case Rimini Street Inc. et al. v. Oracle USA Inc. as an Impact Case.  Law360 named two Gibson Dunn cases, Rimini Street, and Charles v. Seinfeld et al., among its “Top 10 Copyright Rulings of 2019.”  And World Trademark Review 1000 2020 recognized the firm for Enforcement and Litigation in the Washington, D.C. metro area, noting that, “[s]carcely rivalled when it comes to high-profile, big-ticket, complex litigation of any kind, Gibson Dunn brings the heat in IP infringement cases.”           

Our IP litigators are also an integral part of Gibson Dunn’s Litigation practice that The American Lawyer named as a Finalist in its 2022 Litigation Department of the Year competition, noting that “when news breaks and the pressure rises, clients call Gibson Dunn’s litigators to regain control.”  This award follows our unprecedented four wins in this biennial competition.  In addition to trying cases, working with our renowned appellate practice places us at the forefront of IP appellate litigation including multiple representations before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.

The lawyers of Gibson Dunn’s Intellectual Property Practice Group also provide strategic counselling on all aspects of IP transactions.

Working closely with lawyers from Gibson Dunn’s other transactional practices, we provide critical insight into the complex IP issues that are often the driving factor behind corporate deals powering the modern information economy, including in connection with mergers, acquisitions, financings, strategic alliances, joint ventures and initial public offerings.  Our lawyers have extensive experience drafting and negotiating IP representations, warranties and covenants as well as licensing, cross-licensing and grant-back arrangements.  Members of the group work closely with our clients’ internal business teams to analyze and provide critical thinking and advice with respect to the intellectual property owned or licensed by target companies.  This serves to reveal and address material issues potentially affecting value propositions or other critical drivers of an underlying transaction, including:

  • IP due diligence
  • Licensing in and licensing out of  IP rights
  • Open source licensing reviews
  • Software audits
  • Post-closing assignment filings

Further, working with our Public Policy group, we provide critical guidance in connection with navigating the nuances inherent in legislative advocacy before the U.S. Congress and various state legislatures concerning IP issues.


  • Following a decade of litigation, Gibson Dunn secured the largest defense victory in a patent infringement suit in history on behalf of EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer Inc. Biogen sued Serono and Pfizer in the District of New Jersey for infringement of a patent, in connection with the marketing and sale of Serono’s leading multiple sclerosis medicine, Rebif, which Serono co-promoted for several years with Pfizer. Biogen sought more than $5.4 billion in damages, an amount which would have more than doubled the largest award in the history of patent litigation. After a five-week trial, the jury unanimously rejected Biogen’s liability claim and found that the claims of the patent were invalid as anticipated. Biogen challenged the verdict and the district court granted judgment as a matter of law in Biogen’s favor. Serono appealed and in a unanimous, precedential opinion, the appeals court held, “In evaluating the evidentiary record presented to the jury on the question of anticipation,” the district court’s “determinations led to an erroneous conclusion on anticipation.”
  • Obtained unanimous Federal Circuit affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Medtronic, Inc. despite the fact that the Federal Circuit had changed the relevant law while the appeal was pending, a situation in which remand to the district court is ordinarily called for.  Medtronic’s competitor had asserted several patents that, it argued, Medtronic’s software and blood glucose monitors infringed.
  • Preserved on appeal our summary judgment victory in the Northern District of California on behalf of Zynga and Electronic Arts.  Before the Northern District, we secured a dismissal of the case on the pleadings after successfully arguing that a patent asserted by Gametek LLC was directed to non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 – an abstract idea.  Gametek had asserted that the fundamental “in-game purchase” functionality of certain Zynga and EA social networking games infringed on its patent.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Northern District.
  • For CLS Bank, we obtained unanimous U.S. Supreme Court affirmance that ended a long-running patent infringement suit.  The Court affirmed an en banc Federal Circuit ruling, obtained by Gibson Dunn upon entering the case, that the claims were patent-ineligible as the patents were drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement.
  • Successfully urged the U.S. Supreme Court, as co-counsel to Nautilus, Inc., to abrogate the Federal Circuit’s standard for determining whether patent claims are too vague to be valid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.  Gibson Dunn led the briefing for Nautilus.  The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Nautilus, striking down the Federal Circuit’s test for patent indefiniteness.
  • Secured from the Federal Circuit a reversal of an injunction and contempt sanction against Lawson Software (now Infor) for infringement of a patent directed to e-procurement software.  Prior to Gibson Dunn’s involvement, a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia found infringement of two patents asserted by a competitor and the district court enjoined Lawson’s manufacture, sale and use of the accused software.  The Federal Circuit reversed the verdict in part, but on remand the district court re-issued the injunction and found Lawson in contempt for continuing to sell infringing software – imposing a compensatory fine and further daily fine.  While appeals from the injunction and contempt orders were pending, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reexamined the sole remaining patent claim in the case and determined it was invalid, a decision the Federal Circuit affirmed.  The Federal Circuit then ruled in Lawson’s favor on the contempt appeal, vacating the district court’s injunction and contempt sanction against Lawson and remanding with instructions to dismiss the case.
  • Secured summary judgment of non-infringement in the Eastern District of Texas of a patent directed toward Wi-Fi calling capabilities of mobile phones sold by our client, a U.S. wireless service provider.  We subsequently defended that determination before the Federal Circuit, which issued a unanimous decision upholding the district court’s ruling.
  • On behalf of Danisco US (now DuPont), won reinstatement by the Federal Circuit of declaratory judgment claims for non-infringement, invalidity and priority of invention of a competitor’s patent.  While an infringement suit against Danisco had not been explicitly threatened as the patent issued the same day as the declaratory judgment action was brought, the Federal Circuit, in a case of first impression, found that declaratory judgment jurisdiction can be established in a patent case based on pre-patent issuance conduct.
  • Successfully represented our clients, AT&T as well as another U.S. wireless service provider and their vendor Roamware, that were sued in the District of Delaware by Roamware’s competitor on two patents directed toward gateways for provisioning roaming wireless calls.  After securing a favorable claim construction ruling on both patents in suit, the parties entered a stipulation of non-infringement to allow the plaintiff to appeal.  We then successfully upheld the victory below on appeal before the Federal Circuit.
  • Following a successful claim construction hearing, secured a stipulation in the District of Delaware that client Cablevision’s cable network did not infringe any of the multiple asserted patents.  We then successfully obtained a unanimous affirmance from the Federal Circuit.
  • Won a complete bench trial victory for Novartis in the District of Delaware when all challenges to Novartis’s patent covering its blockbuster Gilenya® multiple sclerosis medicine were rejected. Prior to trial, Gibson Dunn secured a preliminary injunction for Novartis. Separately, we succeeded in persuading the Patent Office to reject three independent challenges to Novartis’s patent.
  • Won summary judgment dismissal of non-infringement for NetApp on the final two patents of a case in which Gibson Dunn was retained mid-stream by NetApp. Intellectual Ventures (IV), the largest patent holding company, brought the suit on five patents in the District of Massachusetts against NetApp’s data storage systems. Three of the patents were found invalid in IPRs.
  • Following a successful claim construction in a related patent case on behalf of DigitalOptometrics, Gibson Dunn convinced 20/20 Vision Center to agree to stay the instant case against DigitalOptometrics pending 20/20’s appeal of the related case. After taking an appeal and losing, 20/20 agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.
  • Secured a complete defense victory after a one-week trial before the International Trade Commission in an investigation brought by Cresta Technology, a former virtual fabrication company, against Sharp on two patents directed toward television tuners.  Cresta sought an exclusion order keeping Sharp from importing nearly $1 billion a year in televisions into the United States.  The Commission reviewed and affirmed the ALJ’s determination in favor of Sharp.
  • Won a complete defense jury verdict for T-Mobile USA, Inc. after a three-week trial in the District of Nebraska in a $100 million patent infringement case. The lawsuit had been brought by Prism Technologies, LLC, an Omaha-based patent licensing entity. But the jury found that none of T-Mobile’s five accused networks infringed any claim of the two asserted patents. This victory was especially significant considering that Prism had already gone to trial in the same court against other U.S. wireless service providers and secured a trial victory against one and a significant settlement against another. Gibson Dunn’s trial team kept the jury focused on the accused T-Mobile networks, and showed that they were non-infringing.
  • Successfully represented a branded pharmaceutical company in defending its patents covering the third best-selling prescription drugs in the United States related to the treatment of diabetes.  Eli Lilly filed New Drug Applications with the FDA, seeking approval to market its own competitive insulin products.  We represented our client in Hatch-Waxman patent infringement lawsuits brought against Eli Lilly in connection with those applications.  On the morning of trial, Eli Lilly consented to, and the court entered, an order enjoining Eli Lilly from selling its proposed product for over a year.  Lilly further agreed to a royalty-bearing license to certain of our client’s patents.
  • After a one-week trial in the Eastern District of Texas, secured a complete jury verdict on behalf of Red Hat and Novell finding the asserted patents invalid and not infringed.  Plaintiff had accused the Linux-based operating systems of our clients of infringement.
  • Won a jury verdict for a U.S. wireless service provider in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Realtime Data, LLC, a non-practicing entity, in the plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas.  After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury found that the carrier did not infringe any of the 11 patent claims asserted by Realtime, and that all 11 claims were also invalid in light of the prior art.  Gibson Dunn was retained as lead counsel by the carrier only two and a half months before trial, when Realtime was seeking $265 million in damages.  Through successive pre-trial motions, Gibson Dunn was able to reduce the damages claim by the time the case reached the jury.
  • Successfully represented a leading handset provider in patent litigation brought in both the International Trade Commission and district court.  At the ITC, complainant asserted five patents relating to how mobile phones access online content and communicate with Web servers, seeking an exclusion order preventing our client from importing its mobile handsets into the United States.  After Gibson Dunn obtained a favorable claim construction on key claim limitations, plaintiff conceded non-infringement and dropped the investigation.  Plaintiff pursued nearly all of the same patents in the District of Delaware.  After Gibson Dunn persuaded the court to adopt the ITC’s prior construction, plaintiff dismissed the litigation
  • Successfully defended a patent suit filed in the District of Nevada in which plaintiff alleged infringement of hundreds of claims across 10 patents directed toward a variety of mobile technologies, including speech recognition software, location-finding services, provisioning mobile devices, and encrypting communication channels.  After successfully transferring the case to the Northern District of California and limiting plaintiff to eight claims across four asserted patents, we obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on three of the four patents, and summary judgment of no indirect infringement on the fourth patent.  Plaintiff conceded that any remaining potential damages were de minimis and stipulated to a judgment of non-infringement in favor of our client of all patents.
  • After being retained by Oculus VR LLC following trial, Gibson Dunn successfully argued, post-trial, for a large reduction of a verdict against Oculus. ZeniMax Media Inc. had won a $500 million jury verdict against Facebook and its subsidiary Oculus in the Northern District of Texas related to its Oculus Rift virtual reality gaming system. The court granted Gibson Dunn’s motion, cutting the damages award in half and denying plaintiff’s request for a nationwide injunction against the sale of Oculus VR headsets. Additionally, post-trial, the court entered judgment for Oculus on the Lanham Act claim, reversing the jury finding; it further found that ZeniMax had engaged in discovery misconduct, imposing a substantial monetary sanction. While Gibson Dunn was preparing the client’s appeal on the remaining issues, the parties reached a confidential resolution.
  • Won a victory for A Shoc Beverage and Lance Collins for an injunction brought by Outlaw Beverage, Inc. in the Delaware Chancery Court where it sought to enjoin A Shoc from marketing or selling its Adrenaline Shoc product, which Outlaw alleged breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated trademark name and logo for “Adrenaline Shoc” energy drink and other trade secrets. Gibson Dunn convinced the court to deny Outlaw’s preliminary injunction motion. Chancellor Bouchard ruled that Gibson Dunn had “made a compelling case” with “overwhelming” evidence on the merits, that Outlaw’s arguments on irreparable harm were “highly speculative” and “riddled with guesswork,” and that enjoining the introduction of Adrenaline Shoc into the market was “far more likely” to impose significant harm on A Shoc than declining an injunction would on Outlaw. Chancellor Bouchard also agreed that Outlaw’s preliminary injunction motion was barred by laches. As a result of this victory, A Shoc is currently able to market and sell its Adrenaline Shoc product.
  • Successfully defeated a $1 million claim for attorneys’ fees against Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (LV). LV sued My Other Bag Inc. (MOB) for copyright and trademark infringement. While represented by other counsel, LV lost on summary judgment and on appeal, and then retained Gibson Dunn to defend against MOB’s substantial attorneys’ fees claim. Despite finding against LV at all stages of the litigation, the Southern District of New York rejected the fee request, accepting our arguments that the claims were not frivolous, objectively unreasonable, or litigated in a vexatious manner such as to merit fees under the Lanham Act. The Second Circuit affirmed in a decision that emphasized the importance of trademark owners’ ability to enforce their trademark rights, even in instances where the underlying claims do not succeed.
  • Won dismissal for Kimberly-Clark Corporation in a trademark infringement case filed by plaintiff Yaros, alleging that Kimberly-Clark used plaintiff’s registered phrase in online advertising and seeking millions of dollars in damages.  Gibson Dunn initially filed a dispositive motion that severely curtailed the extent of plaintiff’s claims, and then pursued discovery that forced the plaintiff to admit at deposition that it could not meet his required burden of establishing a likelihood of confusion.  We also filed retaliatory false advertising claims against the plaintiff’s company, resulting in a highly favorable settlement.
  • Successfully won numerous matters before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) for Alexandria Real Estate Equities against Bugsby Property LLC. Gibson Dunn commenced eight separate proceedings on behalf of Alexandria, seeking to stop its competitor Bugsby Property LLC from obtaining registration and monopoly power over terms that are widely used in the real estate market for scientific and technological-focused properties, “Cluster of Clusters” and “Inclusive Innovation.” Bugsby moved to dismiss all eight proceedings, arguing that Alexandria could not establish that the terms are generic or merely descriptive. We opposed the motions, arguing that the terms at issue are incapable of serving a source-identifying function, and thus should not be allowed to be appropriated by one entity. The TTAB denied all eight of Bugsby’s motions. Gibson Dunn moved to dismiss all of Bugsby’s affirmative defenses, on the ground that the defenses failed as a matter of law. The TTAB granted our motions in their entirety, and denied Bugsby leave to replead the defenses. Bugsby thereafter voluntarily filed notices of withdrawal, abandoning all its trademark applications with prejudice.
  • Secured a victory in the Federal Circuit on behalf of the University of Southern California (USC) affirming a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to refuse registration of the “SC” trademark to the University of South Carolina.
  • Obtained a complete victory for client CytoSport in complex trademark and false advertising litigation in the Central District of California.  After CytoSport obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining sales of a competitive product on trademark and trade dress grounds, Gibson Dunn secured dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaims seeking to invalidate CytoSport’s “Muscle Milk” trademark.  We later obtained a consent order converting the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction that required the competitor to withdraw pending trademark applications and administrative challenges to the “Muscle Milk” trademark.
  • Represented Gucci America in the Southern District of New York, securing a verdict that credit card processing companies may be held liable for contributory trademark infringement.
  • Secured a victory in the Southern District of New York on behalf of Tiffany against multiple defendants on claims of trademark infringement and counterfeiting.
  • Successfully represented Gucci America, Inc., Balenciaga, S.A. and Balenciaga America, Inc. in an action for trademark infringement and counterfeiting in the Southern District of New York, obtaining an ex parte prejudgment asset freeze and, later, a default judgment.
  • Represented software company Rimini Street Inc. in copyright infringement litigation concerning the applicability of numerous statutory and equitable defenses to the Copyright Act, and raising novel issues relating to the scope of copyright injunctions and entitlement to attorneys’ fees for successful copyright claims. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in favor of Gibson Dunn’s position, determining that a provision in the Copyright Act authorizing a prevailing party to recover “full costs” does not include all litigation expenses.
  • Successfully represented client Vernon W. Hill II, founder of Commerce Bank and Metro Bank, in overturning a nationwide copyright injunction obtained by the owners of his former bank, T.D. Bank, which sought to prohibit the sale and marketing of his book, Fans! Not Customers: How to Create Growth Companies in a No Growth World. The Third Circuit reversed and vacated the injunction, agreeing with Gibson Dunn that TD Bank was not entitled to injunctive relief based on generalizations about TD Bank’s interest in exclusivity in its copyright, and could not show how the bank would be harmed since it did not make any commercial use of the work at issue.
  • Won a $3 billion trial verdict in California Superior Court for Hewlett Packard against Oracle, in a long-running dispute over copyright licensing agreements related to software.
  • Won a complete defense victory for SoundCloud, a leading provider of streaming music services, in an action brought by Beatport, an online music store. Despite being given leave to amend, Gibson Dunn was able to obtain dismissals of the original complaint and two amended complaints, without leave to amend on the final dismissal. The dispute arose from Beatport’s allegations that the SoundCloud defendants improperly used technology they had acquired from Beatport’s predecessor, Pulselocker, to develop a DJ software integration product permitting offline access to a catalogue of music.
  • Obtained an appellate victory in the Federal Circuit on behalf of Allergan.  The court reversed and remanded a district court order that had dismissed Allergan’s claim against several competitors under California’s Unfair Competition Law relating to the eyelash-treatment product Latisse.  Allergan owned the patents related to the product and alleged that the defendants were manufacturing, marketing and selling infringing products.  Allergan also claimed the defendants were selling these products without registering them with state and federal regulators, actionable under the Unfair Competition Law.  Allergan sought an injunction against the defendants’ sale of the products, as well as restitution.  The Federal Circuit reversed the district court on the grounds that the Unfair Competition Law did not condition a plaintiff’s right to an injunction on its ability to obtain restitution.
  • Hired only weeks before trial to defend trade secret claims, Gibson Dunn secured a complete win in the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of Advanced Nutrients.  We were able to convince the court that the plaintiff had not produced sufficient evidence to establish that the claimed trade secret formula of microbial bacterial was actually a trade secret.  We subsequently defended that win before the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
  • Secured an important victory for LiveJournal in a copyright infringement suit brought by a celebrity photography agency.  The case arose when several dozen celebrity photographs were posted by users of the LiveJournal community, Oh No They Didn’t! (ONTD!).  The Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of LiveJournal that service providers who provide an online platform for users are entitled to protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provision.
  • Secured a confidential settlement for Nike Inc. resolving its case against three former top Nike footwear designers in the Oregon Circuit Court less than six months after winning a TRO and a preliminary injunction preventing the designers from (1) disclosing misappropriated trade secrets, (2) working for any Nike competitor, and (3) publicly associating themselves with a Nike competitor on social media.  ​

Gibson Dunn has extensive experience in all types of transactions involving intellectual property, including:

  • Negotiation of IP transfer and licensing provisions
  • IP representations and warranties and due diligence as part of M&A transactions, IPOs, and investment and financing transactions
  • Purchase and sale of IP assets including domain names, trademarks, copyrights and patents
  • Acquisition of IP assets in bankruptcy proceedings
  • Licensing in and licensing out of intellectual property both within and without litigation

The Intellectual Property group has guided and counseled our clients through:

  • Development and implementation of patent acquisition programs
  • Formation of and participation in patent pools and research consortiums
  • Protection of IP assets
  • Evaluation of membership in patent defense funds and groups to purchase patent assets
  • Evaluation of potential declarations of IP rights to standards-setting organizations
  • The offsetting of risk through the sale of portions of potential collections pending appeal of patent damages awards
  • Software audits from the Software and Information Industry Alliance (SIIA) and the Business Software Alliance (BSA), as well as from individual software providers
  • Joint development and research collaboration agreements

This experience is across a wide range of technologies and industries including:

  • Software
  • Telecommunications
  • Internet and e-commerce
  • Semiconductors
  • Biopharma
  • Retail
  • Entertainment
  • Medical devices
  • Universities
  • Banking
  • Robotics


Federal Circuit Update (April 2024)

-May 10, 2024

Supreme Court Holds That Copyright Act Has No Time Limit For Damages But Declines To Decide When Infringement Claims Are Timely

-May 9, 2024

Double-Patenting Ruling Shows Terminal Disclaimers’ Value

-May 8, 2024

Managing IP Names Brian Rosenthal as its 2024 New York Intellectual Property Litigator of the Year

-April 26, 2024

Federal Circuit Update (March 2024)

-April 5, 2024

Federal Circuit Update (February 2024)

-March 5, 2024

Law360 Names Gibson Dunn Among 2023 Intellectual Property Practice Groups of the Year

-February 15, 2024

Federal Circuit Update (January 2024)

-February 7, 2024

Gibson Dunn Named a 2023 Firm of the Year

-January 22, 2024

Federal Circuit Update (December 2023)

-January 10, 2024

Federal Circuit Update (November 2023)

-December 11, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (October 2023)

-November 6, 2023

Gibson Dunn Recognized in 2023 Managing IP Handbook

-October 10, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (September 2023)

-October 3, 2023

Law360 Names Eight Gibson Dunn Partners as 2023 MVPs

-October 2, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (August 2023)

-September 6, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (July 2023)

-August 7, 2023

Gibson Dunn Recognized in the 2023 IAM Patent 1000 Guide

-August 2, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (June 2023)

-July 6, 2023

Supreme Court Holds That U.S. Trademark Infringement Claims Must Be Based On Domestic Use In Commerce

-June 29, 2023

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of First Amendment Defenses To Use Of Trademarks In “Parody” Products

-June 8, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (May 2023)

-June 6, 2023

Gibson Dunn Adds IP Litigator Kieran Kieckhefer in San Francisco

-June 5, 2023

Second Circuit Rules on Trade Secret Specificity and Unjust Enrichment Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act

-June 1, 2023

Supreme Court Rejects Antibody Drug Patent, Clarifies Patent “Enablement” Requirement

-May 18, 2023

Supreme Court Holds New Meaning Alone Is Not Sufficient For The Fair Use Defense

-May 18, 2023

Ernest Hsin Named 2023 Top Intellectual Property Lawyer

-May 17, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (April 2023)

-May 1, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (March 2023)

-April 3, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (February 2023)

-March 6, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (January 2023)

-February 7, 2023

2021/2022 Federal Circuit Year in Review

-February 2, 2023

Lawdragon Names 19 Partners Among its 2023 500 Leading Lawyers in America and Hall of Fame Honorees

-January 17, 2023

Webcasts: Gibson Dunn’s Annual California MCLE Marathon – 2023

-January 12, 2023

Federal Circuit Update (December 2022)

-January 5, 2023

Gibson Dunn Promotes 37 Lawyers to Partnership

-November 15, 2022

Gibson Dunn Recognized in IAM Patent 2022

-October 18, 2022

Expert Guides Best of the Best United States 2022 Recognizes Ten Gibson Dunn Partners

-October 7, 2022

Gibson Dunn Named Among Top Law Firms in Germany 2022/2023

-October 7, 2022

Benchmark Litigation US 2023 Gives Top Marks to Gibson Dunn

-October 6, 2022

Gibson Dunn Recognized in 2022 Managing IP Handbook

-August 3, 2022

Four Who’s Who Legal 2022 Guides Recognize Three Gibson Dunn Partners

-August 3, 2022

New District Court Decision Provides Useful Guidance on Application of Trademark Law to Virtual Goods

-May 20, 2022

Wayne Barsky Named 2022 Top Intellectual Property Lawyer

-April 21, 2022

Gibson Dunn Adds Intellectual Property Partner Charlotte Jacobsen in New York

-April 11, 2022

Gibson Dunn Wins Impact Case Award in Managing IP Americas Awards 2022

-April 8, 2022

Gibson Dunn and Howard Hogan Named to World Trademark Review 1000 2022 Edition for Enforcement and Litigation

-March 3, 2022

Supreme Court Holds That A Mistake Of Law Can Excuse An Inaccurate Copyright Registration

-February 24, 2022

2020/2021 Federal Circuit Year in Review

-January 27, 2022

Webcast: Supreme Court Roundup: 2020-2021 Terms

-January 13, 2022

Gibson Dunn Named Labor & Employment Litigation Department of the Year and a Finalist for Litigation Department of the Year; and Josh Krevitt Named Litigator of the Year

-December 6, 2021

Gibson Dunn Recognized in 2021 Managing IP Handbook

-October 13, 2021

Benchmark Litigation US 2022 Gives Top Marks to Gibson Dunn

-October 13, 2021

Seventeen Gibson Dunn Partners Recognized in Expert Guides’ Women in Business Law

-October 7, 2021

Second Circuit Issues Important Ruling Concerning Authors’ Termination Rights Under The Copyright Act

-October 5, 2021

Gibson Dunn Named Patent Litigation Firm of the Year by LMG Life Sciences

-September 23, 2021

Webcast: Economic Espionage and Intellectual Property Theft: Trends and Developments with Threats and Enforcement

-September 23, 2021

Federal Circuit Update (August 2021)

-September 8, 2021

10 Gibson Dunn Partners Named Lawyers of the Year

-August 19, 2021

Who’s Who Legal 2021 Recognizes Gibson Dunn Partners in Asset Recovery, Capital Markets and IP

-August 13, 2021

Alice at Six: Patent Eligibility Comes of Age

-August 4, 2021

Federal Circuit Update (July 2021)

-August 2, 2021

Federal Circuit Update (June 2021)

-July 6, 2021

Jane Love Named Among Top Women in IP 2021

-July 1, 2021

Supreme Court Upholds, But Limits, The Doctrine Of Patent Assignor Estoppel

-June 29, 2021

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Addresses Federal Trade Secret Standards

-June 24, 2021

Supreme Court Holds That The Constitution Requires Administrative Review of PTAB Decisions

-June 21, 2021

How Trade Dress Law Has Evolved During COVID

-June 14, 2021

Second Circuit Issues Important Ruling on Trademark Settlements and Antitrust/IP Interface

-June 14, 2021

Federal Circuit Update (May 2021)

-June 8, 2021

Gibson Dunn Recognized in IAM Patent 2021

-June 1, 2021

Courts Are Aligning Patent Fraud, Inequitable Conduct Claims

-May 19, 2021

Wayne Barsky Named 2021 Top Intellectual Property Lawyer

-April 21, 2021

Federal Circuit Update (March 2021)

-April 5, 2021

Supreme Court Holds That Google’s Use Of Oracle’s Java Software Interface Is Fair Use

-April 5, 2021

Federal Circuit Update (February 2021)

-March 3, 2021

Gibson Dunn, Howard Hogan and Kenneth Parker Named to World Trademark Review 1000 2021 Edition for Enforcement and Litigation

-February 17, 2021

Josh Krevitt and Stuart Rosenberg Named Litigators of the Week

-February 17, 2021

ITC Section 337 Patent Investigations: Overview

-February 10, 2021

Federal Circuit Update (January 2021)

-February 1, 2021

2019/2020 Federal Circuit Year in Review

-January 11, 2021

Update on Intellectual Property Issues in the Response to COVID-19

-January 8, 2021

COVID-19 Relief Bill Creates New Small Claims Copyright Board, Stronger Criminal Penalties for Illicit Streaming

-December 28, 2020

New Law Creates Procedural Tools to Challenge Fraudulent Trademark Filings and Formalizes Presumption of Irreparable Injury for Trademark Violations

-December 22, 2020

Gibson Dunn Named Among Top 50 Law Firms in Germany

-November 5, 2020

Benchmark Litigation US 2021 Gives Top Marks to Gibson Dunn

-October 16, 2020

Where Does Judge Barrett Fall on IP Issues?

-October 6, 2020

LMG Life Sciences Awards 2020 Names a Gibson Dunn Win an Impact Case of the Year

-September 30, 2020

13 Gibson Dunn Partners Named Lawyers of the Year

-August 20, 2020

Don’t Count On PREP Act To Defend Pandemic IP Infringement

-July 2, 2020

Supreme Court Holds That Adding “.com” To A Generic Term Can Create A Protectable Trademark

-June 30, 2020

Update on Intellectual Property-Related Issues in the Response to COVID-19

-June 26, 2020

Gibson Dunn Recognized in IAM Patent 2020

-June 17, 2020

Update on Intellectual Property-Related Issues in the Response to COVID-19

-June 12, 2020

Update on Intellectual Property-Related Issues in the Response to COVID-19

-May 28, 2020

U.S. Copyright Office Releases Report on Recommended Changes to Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

-May 22, 2020

Update on Intellectual Property-Related Issues in the Response to COVID-19

-May 13, 2020

Supreme Court Holds That Copyright Protection Does Not Extend To Annotations Accompanying Statutory Text

-May 7, 2020

Federal Circuit Update (May 2020)

-May 6, 2020

Update on Intellectual Property-Related Issues in the Responses to COVID-19

-April 28, 2020

Supreme Court Holds That Courts Can Order Trademark Infringers To Disgorge Profits Without Proof Of Willful Infringement

-April 23, 2020

Supreme Court Holds That PTAB’s Timeliness Decisions For Instituting Inter Partes Review Are Not Judicially Reviewable

-April 20, 2020

Recent Trends Involving Intellectual Property Rights in the Responses to COVID-19

-April 14, 2020

Some Protection from Patent Infringement Suits Is Available to Those Who Make and Provide Personal Protective Equipment and Ventilators in Response to the COVID-19 Crisis

-April 8, 2020

Gibson Dunn Wins Two Awards in Managing IP Americas Awards 2020

-March 26, 2020

Jason Lo Named 2020 Top Intellectual Property Lawyer

-March 18, 2020

Gibson Dunn Earns 155 Rankings from Chambers Global 2020

-March 5, 2020

Gibson Dunn and Howard Hogan Named to World Trademark Review 1000 2020 edition for Enforcement and Litigation

-February 13, 2020