Leo Lam has an extensive and successful IP litigation and trial practice. He has specialized in the patent arena, a natural fit given his prior training and experience as an electrical engineer. Leo has handled patent cases throughout the country spanning a wide range of technologies. He also has substantial experience in trade secret, copyright, and trademark cases, as well as general complex civil litigation. Regardless of the type of technology or area of law involved, Leo’s approach focuses on providing result-oriented, bottom-line strategies to achieve the best possible outcome for each client, whether by means of trial, pretrial disposition, or negotiation and settlement.
Cases of Note
Summit 6 LLC v. Twitter, Inc.: We represented Twitter in a patent-infringement suit brought by Summit 6 LLC. In prior cases in the same court, Summit 6 had obtained large settlements and won an $18 million judgment against Samsung. Before the close of discovery, we secured a walk-away settlement for Twitter, with Twitter paying nothing.
Round Rock Research LLC v. SanDisk Corporation: We defended SanDisk from numerous patent assertions by Round Rock, including a total of 15 patents asserted in two separate litigations in the District of Delaware, and 12 patents asserted in another case in the Northern District of California. We prevailed in all adjudicated phases of the Delaware and California actions before the parties reached a broad settlement. In the California action, we secured final judgment in favor of SanDisk after obtaining a summary-judgment victory based on patent exhaustion. In the first Delaware phase, which culminated with a jury trial on two asserted patents, we obtained a defense verdict invalidating most asserted claims of both patents, and finding no infringement as to the other claims. In the next Delaware phase, a second jury trial was vacated after we obtained summary judgment invalidating claims from a third patent asserted by Round Rock. The other patents in the Delaware actions remained pending adjudication when the parties settled.
C-Cation Technologies v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al.: We represented Comcast in a patent infringement case brought by C-Cation Technologies in the Eastern District of Texas, and a related breach of contract claim Comcast brought in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff targeted our clients' high speed data and telephony services and sought damages well into nine figures. We were selected as lead trial counsel for all defendants, which included three other cable companies. After several pre-trial victories, we reached a favorable settlement for all defendants.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v. BT Americas et al.: We represented Comcast in asserting multiple patents against BT in the Northern District of Texas. The patents at issue covered multiple networking technologies, including congestion management, routing, policy management, security, and audio/video conferencing. Through a successful summary judgment and stipulated dismissals, we reached a very favorable resolution.
British Telecommunications v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: We served as lead counsel for Comcast in an eight-patent case brought by British Telecom in Delaware federal court. The case targeted Comcast's high speed data and telephony services and video encryption. We also asserted Comcast patents against British Telecom in Texas federal court. In Delaware, we prevailed on six of the eight patents by way of summary judgment and stipulated dismissals, and thereafter reached a very favorable resolution of both litigations.
SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. et al.: We are defending HTC in a lawsuit in the District of Delaware in which the plaintiff is asserting patent claims that purport to cover web-browsing technology on mobile devices.
Ziptronix v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company: We won summary judgment of non-infringement for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and its subsidiary TSMC, North America in a long-running patent lawsuit brought by North Carolina semiconductor company, Ziptronix, Inc. Ziptronix had asserted nine patents and more than 500 patent claims directed to TSMC’s manufacturing of semiconductors for use in backside-illumination image sensors used predominantly in smartphone cameras. On behalf of TSMC, we defeated Ziptronix’s claims by arguing that the territorial limits of U.S. patent law prohibited reaching TSMC’s business transactions and manufacturing operations in Taiwan.
Biax Corp. v. Motorola Mobility et al.: We represented Motorola Mobility and third-party Broadcom in a patent case targeting a key technology underlying a wide variety of semiconductor chips. The case settled favorably after summary judgment briefing.
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.
Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: We served as lead counsel for Comcast in a patent infringement case involving high-speed Internet and digital TV services. Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. originally filed the case in the Eastern District of Texas, but in conjunction with other co-defendants, we obtained consolidation and transfer to the District of Delaware. Based upon claim construction, Rembrandt conceded non-infringement of all patents, preserving only its right to appeal the claim construction as to the ninth. The Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction that resulted in non-infringement.
Broadcom Corporation, et al. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: On behalf of Broadcom, we led a joint-defense group of wireless chip manufacturers, PC manufacturers, and cellular network carriers. The plaintiff, CSIRO, asserted patent claims that allegedly covered a wide variety of products that offer wireless functionality under the IEEE 802.11 standard for local area networks. We settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Semiconductor Company: We represented a leading semiconductor company in a patent trial brought in the Eastern District of Texas. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) asserted patent infringement claims against more than a dozen of the world's leading technology companies, including our client. CSIRO contended the defendants' Wi-Fi products infringed on CSIRO's patent, and sought nine to ten figure royalty payments. A week into the jury trial, we reached a favorable settlement with CSIRO, and the remaining parties also settled favorably.
Broadcom Corporation v. SiRF Technology and CSR: We served as trial counsel for Broadcom, one of the world’s leading semiconductor companies, against SiRF, a GPS chip manufacturer, and its parent CSR. Broadcom asserted multiple patents covering graphics, video processing, and digital signal processing techniques, as well as claims arising under the Lanham Act and unfair competition laws. This case, along with other actions between the parties, was settled shortly before trial on terms that were very favorable to Broadcom.
Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.: We represented Genentech, Inc. in a high-stakes patent trial. The plaintiff claimed our client's recombinantly engineered, “humanized” therapeutic for breast cancer infringed on the plaintiff's patent. We obtained a jury verdict invalidating the asserted patent on written description and enablement grounds. The verdict was later affirmed on appeal.
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Semiconductor Company: The patent arm of the University of Wisconsin brought patent claims against our client for its core microprocessor technology. As co-lead counsel we defended the company, and settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.
Network Appliance v. BlueArc Corporation: We served as lead counsel for network storage newcomer BlueArc Corporation. We obtained summary judgment for BlueArc in this multi-patent case in the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, industry stalwart Network Appliance, asserted more than 50 patent claims concerning fileserver hardware and software, and sought an injunction which would have ended our client's business. The victory on summary judgment was upheld on appeal.
Plaintiff v. Semiconductor Company: On behalf of a Taiwan-based semiconductor company, we brought a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California to resolve patent claims that purported to target computer-mouse products relying on optical tracking. We settled the case favorably for our client.
evYsio Medical Devices v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems: We represented evYsio Medical Devices in asserting patents for its cardiac stent technology. Prior to jury selection, the case became part of a global settlement between Medtronic and Abbott. Our client, the inventor of several stents in the suit, received $42 million as part of the settlement.
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.
Plaintiffs v. Telecommunications Company: In a patent infringement suit concerning video-conferencing systems, our client's competitor and its patent-holding arm sought an injunction and demanded damages against all products and services in our client’s core business. We settled the case favorably for our client after summary judgment briefing.
Harris Corporation v. DRAM Technology Users: On behalf of the Harris Corporation, we brought a series of patent-infringement actions to enforce a portfolio of patents covering various fundamental features of DRAM technology. The defendants included Hyundai, Siemens, Mosel-Vitelic, Atmel, Nanya, and others. We helped our client license more than 90% of the DRAM industry collectively for nine-figure royalties.
"Recent Developments Regarding Induced Infringement, Damages and Injunctive Relief," Daily Journal & Thomson Reuters Patent Disputes Forum, 2014
Awards and Honors
Leading Lawyer, Legal 500
The Best Lawyers in America, Intellectual Property Litigation, 2012 - present
Future Star, Benchmark Litigation, 2010 - present
AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell
Super Lawyer, Intellectual Property Litigation, Business Litigation, General Litigation, 2006 - present
Member, American Bar Association
Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
Member, Bar Association of San Francisco
Member, New York State Bar Association