Mr. Bhansali's experience spans a wide-range of civil trials and appeals, with particular emphasis on intellectual property and antitrust matters. He has handled patent disputes in district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission for cases that have involved computer software, internet content delivery, digital imaging, telecommunications, and pharmaceuticals. His antitrust experience has included representing corporations in the credit-card, pharmaceutical, and video-game industries as both plaintiffs and defendants. In addition, Mr. Bhansali has handled numerous appeals in federal and state courts, and he has defended clients in several class actions brought under federal and California law.
Mr. Bhansali has been listed in Best Lawyers in America for Intellectual Property Litigation and Patent Litigation, since 2010. In 2009, Mr. Bhansali was named one of the Daily Journal's Top 20 Under 40 lawyers in California. In 2015, he served as President of the Northern District of California Federal Bar Association Chapter, and he presently serves as Chief Financial Officer and Board member for the Northern District of California Practice Programs Committee. From 2010 to 2014, he served on the Executive Committee of the State Bar of California Section of Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law.
Cases of Note
High Point Sarl v. T-Mobile USA: On behalf of T-Mobile, we defeated High Point SARL's multi-patent infringement case in New Jersey federal court. Luxembourg-based High Point had claimed our client infringed four of its patents involving various aspects of digital cellular network technology, and sought significant damages. However, we obtained summary judgment based on patent exhaustion, and successfully defended that judgment in High Point's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc. v. Geotag, Inc.: A Delaware federal judge granted our motion for summary judgment, freeing our client Google from this patent case. Google and Microsoft filed a declaratory judgment action against GeoTag in Delaware. GeoTag counterclaimed for patent infringement, and sought significant damages. We convinced the court that Google's advertising system does not infringe GeoTag’s patent, and no jury trial was necessary. After winning judgment on the merits, we successfully opposed numerous challenges to subject matter jurisdiction made by GeoTag, and protected our summary judgment victory.
Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp: We served as lead counsel for HTC, a Taiwan-based manufacturer of handheld devices, in its battle with Apple over smartphone technology. Apple first sued HTC in district court and before the International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming our client had infringed 20 patents related to various computer-related technologies, including user interfaces, operating systems, power management, and digital signal processing. The ITC hearing that went to decision resulted in a favorable ruling, and HTC obtained a settlement to become the first Android handset maker licensed by Apple.
Eastman Kodak Co. v. HTC Corp.: We defended HTC in a five-patent investigation brought by Kodak before the International Trade Commission. The action accused dozens of mobile devices of infringing digital imaging patents that covered a range of technologies, including image capture, processing, display, compression and transmission. Consistent with ITC practice, our defense took place on a fast schedule, with a hearing date that was set approximately one year from the start of the investigation and fact discovery being completed in approximately six months. Just prior to the scheduled hearing date, the case was resolved when the Kodak patent portfolio was sold.
Guidance IP v. T-Mobile USA: We defended a wireless network provider in a patent-infringement suit filed in the Middle District of Florida relating to cellular-telephone geolocation. We obtained an early dismissal for our client after successfully moving to transfer the case to the Western District of Washington.
Caritas Technologies v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld our successful defense of a $2.2 billion patent infringement claim against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. The plaintiff had asserted that Comcast’s Digital Voice service infringed on its patents for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. We obtained a non-infringement judgment in the Eastern District of Texas, which was sustained on appeal.
Purdue Pharma v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.: We defended Impax Laboratories, Inc. against patent claims related to generic oxycodone products. Following the Federal Circuit’s reversal and remand of inequitable conduct findings in an earlier lawsuit brought against another defendant, we brought a revised challenge under the terms of the Federal Circuit’s order. We then secured a settlement that released our client from all past liability, and gave the company a limited license.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation: We represented TSMC against China's then-leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case tried to date. SMIC owed its very existence to technology stolen from our client. Following a jury verdict on liability in favor of TSMC, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130 million of its company stock. The case serves as precedent for the strong protection afforded by California's trade secret statute, even where the actual theft occurred in Asia.
Discover v. Visa USA, Inc.: We defended Visa USA, Inc. in one of the largest private civil antitrust matters in U.S. history. Discover sued MasterCard and Visa for alleged antitrust violations, claiming that credit card network rules affected member banks’ ability to issue American Express and Discover cards. The case settled on the eve of trial for billions less than Discover claimed. We also defended Visa in a similar action brought by American Express.
Abbott and Fournier v. Teva, Impax Laboratories, Inc.: We represented Impax Laboratories, Inc. against Abbott and the French pharmaceutical company Fournier in a plaintiff-side antitrust case that alleged monopolization in a drug market. We led the trial presentation for all of the plaintiffs, and secured a settlement for Impax midway through the trial.
In re Budeprion Multidistrict Litigation: In a multi-district class action, plaintiffs challenged a drug company's product label under California's unfair competition law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. We settled the case on extremely favorable terms to our client.
Plaintiff v. Content Delivery Service: We defended a start-up content delivery company in a multi-patent lawsuit brought by our client's established competitor. The suit challenged our client's Internet content delivery service. The lawsuit was settled when another company acquired our client for approximately $130 million.
Plaintiff v. Interactive TV Software Provider: We defended patent infringement claims related to interactive television. The case settled on confidential terms following mediation.
Plaintiffs v. Company Co-Founders: We represented the founders of a solar panel company in an action brought by shareholders alleging fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference relating to the demise of the company during the economic crisis. We won a series of three demurrers—the last of which was sustained without leave to amend—providing a complete victory for our clients.
Plaintiff v. Resort Group: We represented various defendants in a putative class action asserting RICO, fraud, and contract claims arising from purchases of timeshares in Mexican resorts. The court granted our motion and dismissed the case entirely.
Awards and Honors
- Listed in The Best Lawyers in America for Intellectual Property Litigation and Patent Litigation, 2010 - present
- World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, IAM Patent 1000, 2015 - 2016
- Top 20 Lawyers Under Age 40, Daily Journal, 2008
- Order of the Coif, University of Texas School of Law
- Executive Editor, Texas Law Review
Publications and Speaking Engagements
- Presenter, "Non-Practicing Entities: What's the Big Deal?" Practising Law Institute, 10th Annual Patent Law Institute, 2016
- Presenter, "Summary & Update on Recent Supreme Court Rulings," Global Patent Strategies Summit, 2015
- Presenter, "Getting Your Settlement Approved," Bridgeport Continuing Education, Class Action Litigation & Management Conference, 2014
- Presenter, "How Your BA in English Can Help Your Patent Law Practice," BASF Barristers Club, 2013
- Presenter, "Damages/Injunctive Relief," Thomson Reuters' Patent Disputes Conference, 2013
- Presenter, "Developments in Pharma and Biotech Patent Litigation," Practising Law Institute, 7th Annual Patent Law Institute, 2013
- Moderator, "Judges’ Panel on Effectively Presenting Expert Witnesses," State Bar Antitrust Section’s Golden State Institute, 2012
- Author, "ABC guide to ITC," Intellectual Property Magazine, 2012
- Presenter, "The Intersection of 17200 & Class Actions," Bridgeport Annual Class Action Litigation Conference, 2012
- Presenter, "Antitrust Issues Stemming From Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) Disputes," Bloomberg, 2012
- Presenter, "Parallel Proceedings in Paragraph IV Disputes: Strategies for Balancing and Streamlining Proceedings Before Federal Courts, PTO and ITC," ACI's Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, 2012
- Co-author, "ANDA Litigation: Strategies and Tactics for Pharmaceutical Patent Litigators," American Bar Association, 2012
- Co-author, "Antitrust Issues that Arise in ANDA Disputes," Bloomberg BNA Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report, 2012
- Presenter, "Litigating in the International Trade Commission," Practising Law Institute, 6th Annual Patent Law Institute , 2012
- Presenter, "The Intersection of 17200 & Class Actions," Bridgeport Annual Class Action Litigation Conference, 2011
- Presenter, "Litigation Inequitable Conduct in the Wake of Therasense," Practising Law Institute, 5th Annual Patent Law Institute , 2011
- Author, “Reverse Payment Settlements in Brand v. Generic Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation,” The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Spring 2010
- Author, “Offensive Collateral Estoppel In Civil Antitrust Cases: Parklane Hosiery and the Seventh Amendment,” The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Fall 2010
- Program chair and author “Application of a Judgment from Government Antitrust Proceedings in Subsequent Private Litigation, ” Practising Law Institute, Current Trends and Issues in Antitrust Litigation, 2010
- Presenter, “Practice Before the Federal Circuit,” and author “Prerequisites to Federal Circuit Review of Judgment,” Practising Law Institute, 4th Annual Patent Law Institute, 2010
- Presenter, “Litigation at the Patent-Antitrust Interface,” and author “Reverse-Payment Settlements After the Federal Circuit’s in Re: Ciprofloxacin Decision” Practising Law Institute, 3d Annual Patent Law Institute, 2009
- Program moderator, "The Use of Economic and Statistical Models in Civil and Criminal Litigation," Federal Bar Association, N.D. Cal. Chapter:, 2009
- Presenter, “Recent Decisions in Antitrust Law and Their Effect on Patent Litigation,” and author “2007 Supreme Court Antitrust Developments” Practising Law Institute, 2d Annual Patent Law Institute, 2008
- Presenter, “Handling Claim Construction on Appeal,” Law Seminars International, Patent Claim Construction Workshop, 2007
- Presenter, “Litigation Strategies,” Law Seminars International, Patent Claim Construction, 2007
- Current CFO and Former President, Northern District of California Chapter of the Federal Bar Association
- Board Member, Northern District of California Practice Programs Committee
- Executive Committee, State Bar of California Antitrust Section, 2010-2014
- Pattern Jury Charge Committee (Business, Consumer & Employment), State Bar of Texas, 2001-2004
- President of the Board of Directors, Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Center, 2010-2012