Bas de Blank. Representative Engagements. Partner Silicon Valley T E

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Bas de Blank. Representative Engagements. Partner Silicon Valley T E"

Elwin Wheeler
6 years ago
Views:

1 Practice Areas Intellectual Property U.S. International Trade Commission Patents IP Counseling & Due Diligence Trade Secrets Litigation Honors Top Verdict of the Year awarded by The Daily Journal and The Recorder based on $112M verdict obtained in August 2012 for Brocade against A10 Networks. Invalidity verdict in Oasis Research LLC v. EMC Corp. (EDTX) was featured in the National Public Radio program When Patents Attack and cited by various legal publications as a leading defense victory of Education J.D., Cornell Law School, 1997, cum laude B.S., Engineering, Harvey Mudd College, Bas de Blank Partner Silicon Valley T E basdeblank@orrick.com... Having handled dozens of ITC investigations, Bas knows an exceptional legal strategy is not enough. The Commission s aggressive speed and complexity are unmatched, and can easily overwhelm. Success requires a tenacious focus, and deep knowledge of jurisdictional, procedural and legal issues. Clients such as Apple, NVIDIA, Acer and Hitachi hire Bas for precisely that mix of skill and dedication. In addition to his ITC practice, Bas also heads Orrick s contentions prosecution practice. He has led more than 30 IPRs and firstchaired more than a dozen trials before the United States Patent Office, as well as represented clients in dozens of trials in district courts, and before PTAB. As someone with degrees in both engineering and English literature, Bas is uniquely suited to present complicated topics to non-technical audiences. He has represented clients in fields as diverse as semiconductor processing and structure, GPS and geosynchronous satellites, image texture and graphics processing, Internet switches and communications, and various consumer products. Representative Engagements U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) cases: Bas has spent 15 years focused on Section 337 patent cases before the International Trade Commission and served as head of Orrick's ITC practice. Bas has represented clients such as Apple, NVIDIA, Siliconware, Acer, Nanya, Mosel Vitelic and Hitachi in over a dozen ITC investigations. The following cases are representative of his accomplishments. In the Matter of Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-724). Bas represented respondent Apple Inc. before the ITC concerning image Orrick Biography: Bas de Blank 1

2 1994, with honors B.A., English Literature, Scripps College, 1994 Memberships State Bar of California American Bar Association International Trade Commission Bar Association compression technology. The complainant sought an exclusion order that would have prohibited the importation of Apple iphones, ipads, ipod touch, and Mac computers. After a hearing and briefing, the full Commission determined there was no violation of any asserted patent by Apple. In the Matter of Certain HSP Modems, Software and Hardware Components Thereof, and Product Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-439). Bas represented PCTEL, Inc. in litigation before the ITC involving PCTEL's assertion that ESS Technology, Inc. infringed two PCTEL patents concerning Host Signal Processing modems. After trial, PCTEL's patents were found valid and enforceable and ESS's products were found to infringe. In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA- 414). Bas represented Mosel Vitelic, Inc. in litigation before the ITC involving Mosel's alleged infringement of four Micron Technology semiconductor processing patents. After trial, the three remaining and asserted Micron patents were declared not infringed, invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Patent Cases in Federal Courts: Bas is a trial attorney and much of his work is in various district courts throughout the United States. Bas represents both plaintiffs and defendants and finds that this balanced approach helps him best serve his clients. While most patent cases settle -- which is why it is critical to have experienced counsel develop a comprehensive case strategy -- Bas has tried eight district court patent cases representing clients such as EMC, Brocade, and Fairchild Semiconductor. Representative district court cases include the following: Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. Bas is lead counsel representing Bosch in five separate litigations related to Bosch's revolutionary portfolio of telehealth patents. Bosch has asserted these patents in separate cases against a number of competitors, including Medtronic, Cardiocom, MyHealth, and ExpressMD. Oasis Research LLC v. EMC Corp. Bas represented EMC Corporation in a patent infringement action brought by Oasis Research, LLC. After a week long trial, an Eastern District of Texas jury found that all of the patents asserted against EMC were invalid. Brocade v. A10 Networks. Bas represented Brocade in a patent infringement, trade secrets misappropriation and copyright theft action in the Northern District of California. After the jury awarded Brocade over $112 million in damages, the judge entered an injunction prohibiting A10 from continuing to infringe Brocade's patents or use Brocade's trade secrets. Clouding Corp. v. VMware Inc. and EMC Corp. Bas represents VMware and EMC in a case where plaintiff Clouding Corp. asserted infringement of 10 patents. The case is Orrick Biography: Bas de Blank 2

3 effectively stayed while the Patent Office considers the validity of the asserted patents in a number of IPR proceedings brought by Bas. Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Bas represents CMU in the Federal Circuit appeal defending the judgment that Marvell owes CMU over a billion dollars in patent damages. ViaSat, Inc. v. Space Systems/Loral, LLC. Bas represented SSL in a patent infringement case related to geosynchronous communication satellites. Mosel Vitelic Corp. v. Micron Technology, Inc. Mr. de Blank represented Mosel in litigation before the Delaware district court involving Mosel's alleged infringement of Micron Technology's semiconductor processing patents and Micron's alleged infringement of Mosel's patents. Extensive press reports promoted that the case was settled favorably for Mosel on the first day of trial. Inter Partes Review before the United States Patent And Trademark Appeal Board: Leveraging his technical and litigation experience, Bas has represented clients in over 30 IPR proceedings, first chaired over two dozen, and conducted a dozen IPR trials. The Patent Office has instituted IPR proceedings and cancelled claims in response to all of Bas's petitions. On behalf of patent owners, Bas has successfully convinced the Patent Office to deny or limit review and to terminate instituted proceedings. Some of Bas's representative IPRs are as follows: IPR ; IPR ; and IPR Representing Patent Owner Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., Bas convinced the Patent Office to deny IPR petitions brought against several Bosch patents. IPR , IPR , and IPR In these proceedings, Bas won rare victories when the Patent Office authorized discovery and then granted Bas's motion to terminate the IPRs based on the petitioner's failure to identify the real parties in interest. The Petitioner appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit, but that Court granted Bas's motion to dismiss the appeal. IPR , IPR , and IPR Bas represented the petitioner in these proceedings. The Patent Office instituted the IPRs and, after a trial, cancelled all of the challenged claims. IPR In this proceeding, Bas represented the petitioner and convinced the Patent Office to institute review. During the IPR, the Patent Owner moved to amend the claims. After the trial, the Patent Office not only invalidated all of the Orrick Biography: Bas de Blank 3

4 challenged claims but also denied the proposed amendment. California State Court Cases: While Bas focuses on patent litigation before federal courts, the ITC, and the Patent Office, he also has significant state court experience. While working at the Santa Clara District Attorney's office, Bas first chaired seven criminal trials and has also led pro bono trials in California state court. Publications Co-Author, Federal Circuit: ITC Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Electronic Transmissions of Digital Data, Managing IP, November, Co-Author, Five Questions Five Questions You Should Ask Yourself About the Section 337 Complaint That Was Just Filed Against You, Managing IP, August, Co-Author, Why The ITC Matters To You, Managing IP, February, Co-Author, ITC ALJ Issues Severe Sanctions Against Respondents and Their Counsel for 'Abhorrent Conduct' Managing IP, November, Co-Author, ITC ALJ Breaks New Ground, Further Heightening The DI Requirement For NPEs, Managing IP, August, Co-Author, United States International Trade Commission Raises Domestic Industry Requirement For Non-Practicing Entities, Managing IP, March, Co-Author, The End Is Just The Beginning: Enforcement Of ITC Exclusion Orders, Managing IP, November, Co-Author, Presidential Veto of ITC Ban On Apple Devices Signals New Approach To Standard Essential Patents Managing IP, August, Co-Author, The Increasingly Lenient ITC Domestic Industry, Managing IP, March, 2013 Co-Author, ITC Proposes New Rules to Limit Discovery, Managing IP, December, Co-Author, Testimony by Videoconference, Managing IP, September, Co-Author, Investigations Before The International Trade Commission, Managing IP, September, Co-Author, Changes In ITC Domestic Industry Requirement For Foreign Companies And Non-Practicing Entities, Managing IP, June, Co-Author, Implications of the Sucralose ITC Investigation For Orrick Biography: Bas de Blank 4

5 Chinese Companies, Managing IP, December, Co-Author, Initial Steps For An ITC Respondent, Managing IP, September, Co-Author, Alternative Enforcement Methods for ITC Orders, 337 Reporter, 2009 Co-Author, Federal Circuit Decision Significantly Reduces Scope of ITC Remedies, Orrick Client Alert, October 20, Co-Author, How trolls can circumvent ebay, Managing IP, October Co-Author, New ITC Rules Impact Litigation, Orrick Client Alert, July 08, Co-Author, Potential Impact Of ITC Decisions And Exclusion Orders, Managing IP, September, Co-author, Does the ITC Offer a Loophole Around ebay, 337 Reporter, Vol. XXIV, Summer Author, Five Steps That Can Help You When the ITC Comes A-Knockin', LAW.COM, October 05, Author, Personal Jurisdiction in Declaratory Judgment Cases in Light of Red Wing and Meade, New Matter Journal, Fall Speeches and Programs Speaker, Claim Drafting Lessons To Avoid: Patent Prosecution From A Litigator's Perspective, October, Speaker, Patent Prosecution & IPRs -- What Litigators Need To Know, April, Speaker and Moderator, ITC Panel: Litigation and Licensing, Managing Intellectual Property US Patent Forum, March Speaker, Patents 101: Patentable Subject Matter, Reading A Patent, And Ownership, February, Speaker, Litigating in the ITC, Intellectual Property Symposium, March Speaker, District Court Injunction or ITC Limited Exclusion Order? Life After ebay and Kyocera, Orrick Quarterly IP Symposium, March Speaker, Passing the Domestic Industry Test with the Rise of Licensing and Trademark Cases, American Conference Institute's Advanced Forum on ITC Litigation, January Speaker, The International Trade Commission, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal Symposium, January Orrick Biography: Bas de Blank 5

6 Speaker, What Any Entrepreneur Should Know About IP, Contracts, and Other Legal Issues, Harvey Mudd College Entrepreneurial Network Conference, April Admissions California Court Admissions United States District Courts Northern District of California United States District Courts Central District of California United States District Courts Southern District of California United States District Courts Eastern District of Texas United States Courts of Appeals Federal Circuit Orrick Biography: Bas de Blank 6

Ryan N. Phelan. Tel

Ryan N. Phelan. Tel Ryan N. Phelan Partner Tel 312.474.6607 rphelan@marshallip.com Ryan N. Phelan is a registered patent attorney who counsels and works with clients in intellectual property (IP) matters, with a focus on