Reset Password


Change Password

Old Password:
New Password:
We have completed your request.

Patent Litigation

Vinson & Elkins’ deep bench of experienced trial lawyers has helped us earn an enviable record of success in litigating complex patent cases in both bench and jury trials. Lawyers in V&E’s Patent Litigation practice combine trial experience with substantial practical litigation strategies, industry experience, and technical training to maximize our clients’ chances for successful and efficient results in their patent litigation matters.

V&E Patent Litigation lawyers regularly practice throughout the United States, before a range of judicial bodies, including federal courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the U.S. International Trade Commission. Almost all of our patent litigators hold technical degrees, and nearly one-third of them earned advanced degrees in fields ranging from aerospace, chemical, and electrical engineering, to biosciences. We have successfully handled patent litigation matters in various industries, including biotechnology, computers, software, energy, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, medical devices, chemical compounds, clean energy, digital media, Internet services, and semiconductors.



文森艾爾斯的專利訴訟律師團隊的足跡遍及全美各地,在各種司法機構席前都可以看到他們努力的身影,包括美國的聯邦法院、聯邦巡迴上訴法院、專利審判暨上訴委員會(Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PTAB),以及國際貿易委員會(International Trade Commission, ITC)。本所的專利庭審律師幾乎都具有科技專業學位,將近三分之一具有研究所以上學位,領域從航太、化學、電子工程到生物科學不一而足。我們成功地處理過各類產業的專利訴訟事宜,包括生物科技、電腦、軟體、能源、石油與天然氣、醫藥、航太、醫療設備、化合物、潔淨能源、數位媒體、網際網路服務以及半導體。

Additional Information

Additional Information

Practice Highlights

  • (Fed. Cir.); (D.N.M.) — Represented major sports league and major sports media company in litigation involving technology for streaming video from sporting events to fans’ mobile devices; obtained complete dismissal by district court of all claims with prejudice and invalidity of the asserted patents based on unpatentable subject matter, which was affirmed on appeal
  • (E.D. Tex.) – Obtained jury verdict of noninfringement for leading smartphone maker in patent litigation involving universal remote control technology
  • (Fed. Cir.); (D. Or.) — Represented the world’s largest personal computer maker in patent litigation related to its software products; obtained summary judgment invalidating both asserted patents as unpatentable; affirmed on appeal
  • (Fed. Cir.); (D. Del.) — Defended several major gaming companies in a patent infringement lawsuit related to peer-to-peer network technologies; obtained summary judgment of non-infringement after successful claim construction proceedings; Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal
  • (W.D. Tex.) — Represented a network service provider in a patent infringement case relating to telecommunications networks; the V&E team led the briefing and argued the motions to dismiss on behalf of the joint defense group and obtained an order recommending dismissal of the case for lack of patentable subject matter, prior to any discovery
  • (Fed. Cir.); (N.D. Cal.) — Represented leading Internet companies in consolidated patent infringement actions related to distributed processing technology; obtained judgment on the pleadings invalidating all three asserted patents for claiming unpatentable subject matter; the judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit
  • (Fed. Circ.); (S.D. Tex.) — Defended AKM Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Moblize, Inc., a provider of real-time data solutions for oil well monitoring and analysis, in a patent infringement case filed by a competitor seeking in excess of $200M and a preliminary injunction; obtained dismissal with prejudice and invalidity of the asserted patent based on unpatentable subject matter, which was affirmed on appeal
  • (W.D. Tex.) — Represented a major sports media company in a jury trial involving four patents directed to the broadcast and display of real-time graphical game updates to fans over the Internet; the plaintiff alleged our client willfully infringed and sought substantial damages; following an eight-day trial, the jury returned a take-nothing verdict in favor of our client, finding that our client didn’t infringe the four asserted patents, that each of the asserted claims were invalid, and that three of the four patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct
  • (ITC); (Fed. Cir.) — Represented respondent Suprema, Inc., a South Korean maker of biometric scanners, as lead trial counsel in the defense of a Section 337 investigation over alleged patent infringement; after a full evidentiary hearing, obtained a favorable ruling that had no material preclusive effect on the importation of Suprema’s current products; on appeal of a remaining issue, although subsequently reversed after en banc review and a 6-4 vote, obtained landmark ruling limiting the statutory authority of the ITC to remedy indirect patent infringement; ranked #2 of the Top 10 ITC Developments of 2013 by Law360; matter settled before review by the U.S. Supreme Court was sought
  • (E.D. Tex.) — Represented a large group of online retailers accused of infringement of a patent related to real-time transactions occurring over the Web based on a variety of web-based transactions, including the online purchase of products and/or services using the retailers’ e-commerce platforms; case successfully resolved after the filing of a CBM petition  
  • (N.D. Cal.); (Fed. Cir.) — Represented plaintiff as lead counsel with respect to patents directed to tracking of semiconductor wafers in a SMIF fab. After two appeals, obtained a unanimous jury verdict in the Northern District of California this verdict was ranked by VerdictSearch as the fourth largest IP litigation verdict of 2007, and at the time one of the top 20 largest verdicts overall in the U.S
  • (Fed. Cir.); (E.D. Tex.) — Represented a major media company in a patent infringement case related to photographic images and information displayed on the floor—a significant source of revenue for the client—and obtained a very favorable ruling on claim construction; subsequently, the plaintiff conceded that it could not prove infringement, and the court entered a final judgment of dismissal, which was affirmed on appeal


  • (美國德州西區聯邦地區法院)— 代表某大型體育媒體公司,針對向網際網路上的球迷廣播以及即時圖形化賽事更新顯示的四項專利,進行陪審團審判;原告指控我們的客戶故意侵權並尋求實質的損害賠償;在經過八天的審判後,陪審團做出了對我們的客戶有利的決定(Take-nothing),認定我們的客戶並沒有侵害到原告主張的四項專利,因此各項主張均無效,而四項專利的其中三項也因不當行為而導致無法執行
  • (國際貿易委員會);(聯邦巡迴上訴法院)— 在一依337 法案調查(Section 337 Investigation)所提出的專利侵權案件中,擔任被告南韓生物特徵掃描器製造商 Suprema, Inc. 的首席庭審辯護律師;在進行完整的聽證會後,為Suprema 現有產品之進口贏得無重大排除效果(no material preclusive effect)的有利裁決;就另一爭議,在上訴審中獲得具有劃時代意義的重大判決,即限制了國際貿易委員會得判定補償間接專利侵權的法定權限;Law360 評定本案為2013年 ITC 發展(ITC Developments)十大案件的第二名;其後,聯邦巡迴法院進行全院聯席審理(En Banc),針對 337 法案爭議以六票對四票發表意見;最終本案在上訴至美國最高法院前達成和解
  • (美國德州東區聯邦地區法院)— 代表某大型線上零售集團,針對根據各種網路型交易而在網路上進行即時交易,包括使用零售商電子商務平台進行之線上購物和/或服務,其被控侵犯專利權的行為進行訴訟;在向專利審判暨上訴委員會遞交請願書進行涵蓋商業方法(Covered Business Method, CBM)複審後,根據 35 USC § § 101、102、103 與 112,基於所主張之專利為無效的理由,官司順利獲得解決
  • (美國加州北區聯邦地區法院)— 代表全球最頂尖的快閃記憶體製造商之一,針對涉及快閃記憶體晶片、記憶體系統、半導體制程與晶片封裝專利等十二項專利的專利侵權索賠進行訴訟;在提出專利權耗盡原則的有利判決下,所有索賠都被駁回;在聯邦巡迴上訴法院為客戶辯護取得勝利
  • (美國德拉瓦聯邦地區法院)— 代表全球頂尖快閃記憶體製造商之一,針對關於快閃記憶體產品與積體電路封裝的專利進行專利侵權訴訟;在初次審判中即獲得主張無效的判決,並贏得宣判無效的簡易判決
  • (美國加州北區聯邦地區法院);(聯邦巡迴上訴法院)— 在關於涉及 SMIF 晶圓廠中半導體晶圓之追蹤的專利訴訟中,以首席辯護律師身分代表原告進行訴訟;經過兩次上訴,得到美國加州北區聯邦地區法院陪審團的一致判決;VerdictSearch 將本判決列為 2007 年智慧財產權訴訟四大判決之一,同時名列全美前 20 大判決之一
  • (國際貿易委員會)— 在國際貿易委員會席前代表某美國跨國公司擔任原告;本案涉及風力發電機技術以及日本大企業及其美國子公司製造之風力發電機產品的多項專利;我們審理本案後初步判定日本公司侵犯到我們客戶的兩項專利;此初步判定遭委員會依專利範圍界定(Claim Construction)後否決;委員會的判決在上訴後遭到推翻並發回委員會重審,而調查結果是以對客戶有利的情況和解(文森艾爾斯是該國際貿易委員會訴訟的首席庭審辯護律師)
  • (美國德州東區聯邦地區法院);(聯邦巡迴上訴法院)— 代表某大型媒體公司針對關於店內廣告技術的專利侵權索賠進行訴訟;獲得非侵權行為的判決,並在上訴中維持原判
  • (美國德州北區聯邦地區法院)— 在作為原告的頂尖電子光控製造商求償超過兩億的專利侵權訴訟中擔任被告的庭審辯護律師,歷經三週審判後,獲得陪審團非侵權行為及主張無效的判決
  • (美國麻州聯邦地區法院)— 在由主要競爭對手提出的專利侵權訴訟中代表某鎖定裝置製造商,歷經兩天的法官審判後贏得該場官司;法院宣佈判決,認定在字面上或等同原則下都沒有侵權

Key Contacts


Connect with V&E

Stay informed by receiving our e-lerts. Select your preferred communications.


Related Practices