Litigation

Patent Litigation

Patent Litigation

Gibson Dunn’s patent litigation practice is renowned for its proven track record of securing significant victories for clients in high-profile cases across various industries.

Overview

Gibson Dunn’s patent litigation group consists of a deep bench of world-class lawyers with varied technical backgrounds, advanced degrees, clerkships, and courtroom experience that make our group unparalleled in our ability to represent clients across the spectrum of patent litigation matters.

We are recognized throughout the industry as leaders for our expertise in trying cases 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.

We have successfully handled countless significant patent cases in courts around the country, representing plaintiffs and defendants before juries and judges. We run every case as though it will go to trial and prepare and advance our trial themes throughout the case. As a result of this approach, we are better prepared to win at trial if it gets to that stage. The group’s lawyers have addressed and successfully worked closely with clients to strategically deploy their patents and in coordinating both offensive and defensive litigation across different forums and countries. We understand that patent litigation is often a means to an end to effectuate a company’s business goals including cross-licensing.

As a result of our success and client-focused approach, the group, as well as many of our patent litigators individually, are regularly acknowledged as industry leaders in top legal publications including Managing IP, IAM Patent, Chambers, LMG Life Sciences, Benchmark Litigation, Who’s Who Legal, The National Law Journal, the Legal 500, Daily Journal, and more. Exemplary recent recognitions include: Intellectual Property Group of the Year by Law360; Intellectual Property Litigator of the Year by Law360; more than a dozen attorneys across our New York, California, DC, and Texas offices named annually in the IAM Patent 1000; more than a dozen attorneys across our New York, California, DC, and Texas offices named annually as a Star or Rising Star by Managing IP; and numerous other regional and nationwide recognitions that use words like “best of the best” and “thought leader” to describe our group and attorneys.

Our practice is recognized for:

“With a national reputation for excellence in high-stakes patent litigation, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher boasts a distinguished track record of trial victories. Experts in the courtroom, the attorneys are renowned for their sound judgement and technical acumen, making them a safe bet for technology leaders.”

IAM Patent 2024

Experience

Recent representations include:

  • EMD Serono and Pfizer – On behalf of these clients in a case involving a multiple sclerosis therapy, Gibson Dunn has twice secured the largest defense victory in a patent infringement suit in history.
  • EMC: Took over as replacement counsel from another firm and won a $14 million jury verdict of infringement for EMC against Pure Storage in the District of Delaware. After trial, the parties settled the case at more than double the amount of the jury verdict.
  • EMC: Won a complete victory on summary judgment of non-infringement for EMC, on 8 patents, in a patent litigation against ACQIS in the District of Massachusetts. The victory was achieved after ACQIS had previously obtained a jury verdict and tens of millions of dollars in settlement payments from other major technology companies on the same portfolio.
  • SharkNinja: Won ITC case in highly publicized 4+ year patent battle against iRobot over robotic vacuum cleaners, dubbed the “Robot Wars,” finding no violation of 4 of 5 patents.
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Represented Novartis Pharmaceutical in a patent litigation in district court and before the PTAB, successfully invalidating a patent held by Shilpa Pharma, directed to a polymorph of fingolimod, a molecule sold by Novartis to treat multiple sclerosis.
  • T-Mobile: 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 brought by Prism Technologies. 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. Won affirmance of the jury verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit and further invalidated all asserted patents on 101 grounds.
  • Fitbit: Won a complete defense victory at trial in high-stakes patent litigation brought by Philips at the ITC, defeating all the asserted patents and defeating Philips’s request for an exclusion order that would have banned substantially all of Fitbit’s smartwatch and tracker products from importation into the United States.
  • VMware and Dell: Defended VMware and Dell against plaintiff WSOU’s $435 million claim of infringement of three patents related to cloud computing. On the third day of a jury trial, we won the first ever directed verdict of non-infringement before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas, leading to a complete defense victory.
  • Archer Aviation: Represented Archer Aviation in a closely watched patent and trade secrets case and scored a major victory invalidating more than half of the patent claims asserted by plaintiff Wisk Aero. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement pre-trial in August 2023 to resolve the litigation. Simultaneously, the parties have entered into an autonomous flight collaboration.
  • Sprint Corporation: Successfully resolved a patent infringement suit brought by General Access Solutions, achieving a remarkable string of victories including defeating GAS’s motions for summary judgment of infringement and partial validity, winning a series of Daubert motions and motions to strike that forced GAS to reduce its damages calculation by half, and obtaining summary judgment on conception date and lack of pre-suit willful infringement.