Reza Dokhanchy

AllRounds, Inc. v. eShares d/b/a Carta, Inc.
United States District Court, Northern District of California

• Representing AllRounds in trade secret misappropriation litigation against Carta.

Gigamon, Inc. v. Apcon, Inc.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas

• Representing Apcon as defendant in six-patent litigation regarding internet and computer networking technology.

Koninklijke KPN, N.V. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc.
United States District Court, District of Delaware

• Representing Sierra Wireless as defendant in patent litigation regarding cellular communication technology.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd.
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

• Represented Motorola Solutions in trade secret and copyright litigation against competitor Hytera. Examined key technical witness for Motorola at trial. After a three-and-a-half month trial, the jury quickly returned a verdict of $764M in damages to Motorola. The victory and Reza’s work was highlighted in The Am Law Litigation Daily’s “Litigator of the Week” feature, as well as reports from various outlets such as Bloomberg and Law360.

Eagle View Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc.
United States District Court, District of New Jersey

• Represented Eagle View in five-patent case as plaintiff against competitor Xactware. Successfully defended all claims from Section 101 challenges and tried the case to a jury, resulting in a verdict of $125M in damages for Eagle View and a finding of willful infringement by Xactware. The judge then entered a permanent injunction in favor of Eagle View against Xactware’s products. The victory was profiled in The Am Law Litigation Daily’s “Litigator of the Week” feature, as well as reports from various outlets such as Law360 and Insurance Journal.

Canon, Inc. v. Avigilon U.S.A. Corp.; Axis Comms. v. Avigilon Fortress Corp.
United States District Court, District of Massachusetts; Patent Trial and Appeal Board

• Represented Motorola subsidiary Avigilon in district court litigation and in five IPR challenges to its patents. Achieved complete victory in all five IPRs, with all challenged claims surviving, after which the district court litigation between the parties was resolved.

Immersion Corp. v. Fitbit, Inc.
United States District Court, Northern District of California

• Represented Fitbit in a three-patent case as defendant in the U.S. and also assisted Chinese counsel in developing arguments for parallel litigation in China. After the U.S. judge invalidated one patent on Section 101 grounds, a favorable claim construction hearing indicating that another patent would be invalidated, and a Chinese court invalidated a patent on obviousness grounds, the dispute between the parties was resolved.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc.
International Trade Commission; Patent Trial and Appeal Board

• Represented Cisco in multiple actions at the ITC and PTAB regarding core internet and computer networking technology, resulting in multiple exclusion orders that prevented its competitor, Arista, from importing any and all of its products, and upholding Cisco’s patents despite several PTAB challenges. The case was featured in various publications: Fortune, “Commission Rules Arista Infringed on Cisco Networking Patents”; The Recorder, “Siding with Cisco, ITC Blocks Rival’s Imports”; The Wall Street Journal, “Arista To Pay Cisco $400 Million as Companies Settle IP Disputes.”

Intel Corp. v. Future Link Systems, LLC
United States District Court, District of Delaware

• Represented Intel in a nine-patent declaratory judgment litigation involving a variety of computer architecture technologies that Intel was accused of infringing.

In re Innovatio
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

• Represented several major Wi-Fi device manufacturers and their corporate customers as defendants in a 21-patent case that was one of the country’s first to rule on the issues of a FRAND rate and essentiality of a patent to a technological standard. The judge ruled that all 441 claims were subject to a FRAND obligation and set a FRAND rate. This case has been featured in numerous articles including in the The National Law Journal, which reported: “When thousands of fast food restaurant outlets, coffee shops and hotels were hit with letters demanding $2,300 apiece for Wi-Fi licensing, Kirkland & Ellis came to the rescue. . . . The result was a groundbreaking decision by U.S. District Judge James Holderman defining what it means for a patent to qualify as a standard essential and how to determine its price — not to mention a bargain-basement settlement for Cisco.”

Summer Associate, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 2011

Summer Associate, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, 2010