Overview
Reza Dokhanchy is an IP litigator focusing on high-tech patent, trade secret, and copyright litigation in U.S. district court, at the International Trade Commission, and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Reza has led teams that have achieved victories in each of these forums across a variety of technical areas, including cellular communications, Wi-Fi, internet and computer networking, wearable electronics, computer architecture, computer vision and modeling, two-way wireless radios, electronic surveillance systems, and consumer electronics. He has extensive experience in all phases of litigation, ranging from examining witnesses in jury trials to arguing hearings and motions before district court judges and IPR panels, both deposing and working with expert and fact witnesses, and managing day-to-day aspects of a case, including discovery and client relationships. Reza also advises clients on pre-litigation and general IP strategy matters, including issues relating to venture capital and M&A activity.
Reza’s strong technical background, which includes both professional and advanced academic experience, is an asset in and out of the courtroom and finds application in all the work that he does.
Reza is also active in pro bono representation, assisting veterans in obtaining benefits, helping non-profit organizations better serve homeless populations, including homeless youth, and helping to ensure the integrity of the election process.
Experience
Representative Matters
Intellectual Ventures v. Honda
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas; Patent Trial and Appeal Board
- Representing Honda in patent litigation in district court and Inter-Partes Review against Intellectual Ventures.
AllRounds, Inc. v. eShares d/b/a Carta, Inc.
United States District Court, Northern District of California
- Represented AllRounds in trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement 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.”
Prior Experience
Summer Associate, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 2011
Summer Associate, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, 2010
More
Thought Leadership
Publications
Cooperative Infringement: I Get By (Infringement Laws) with a Little Help from My Friends, Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 26 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 135 (2011).
Memberships & Affiliations
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology
Credentials
Admissions & Qualifications
- 2012, California
- Registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Courts
- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Education
- University of California, Berkeley, School of LawJ.D.2012
Annual Review Editor, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2010–2012
Associate Editor, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2009–2010
Law and Technology Program Certification
Fellow, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, 2011–2012
- University of California, Los AngelesM.S., Electrical Engineering2009
- University of California, Los AngelesB.S., Electrical Engineeringcum laude2007
Eta Kappa Nu
Tau Beta Pi