Bryan C. Nese

Representative District Court Experience:

• American River Nutrition, LLC v. Beijing Gingko Group Biological Tech. Co., Ltd., et al. (C.D. Cal. 2022) – Obtained complete victory of no infringement on summary judgment for patent related to processes for producing the dietary supplement tocotrienol.
• Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2021) – Settled case on favorable terms for patentee Maxell just after selecting jury for two-week trial involving multiple patents related to image processing, GPS, and battery-saver technologies.
• Northwestern University v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., et al. (N.D. Ill. 2021) – Negotiated highly favorable settlement, which resolved multi-patent case for robotics technology shortly after filing.
• Seiko Epson Corp., et al. v. Vision Imaging Supplies, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal. 2021) – Resolved case with early settlement before incurring the expense of fact discovery, claim construction, or preparation of invalidity contentions.
  
• Canon Inc. v. LD Prods., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2019) / Canon Inc. v. Globest Trading, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2019) – Led pair of cases involving five patents directed to printer cartridges to favorable settlement with minimal expense to client
• Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE USA LLC (E.D. Tex. 2018) – Obtained jury verdict of $43.3 million for client, with the jury finding willful infringement of all claims of all seven asserted patents, covering digital image processing, GPS navigation, cellular transmission, and audio processing; served as lead technical associate throughout the case.
• ZTE Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd. (PTAB 2018) – Persuaded the Board not to institute review on seven separate petitions for inter partes review of patents asserted by client in pending district court litigation.
• Zhejiang Med. Co., Ltd. v. Kaneka Corp. (S.D. Tex. 2018) – Obtained jury verdict of no patent infringement for claims directed to process for manufacturing coenzyme Q10 in declaratory judgment action.
• Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device Co. (E.D. Tex. 2017-18) – Represented patent holder in eight-patent case related to cellular devices.
• SHM Int’l Corp. v. Guangdong Chant Group, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2016) – Successfully dismissed thirteen of the plaintiff’s fourteen claims under Rule 12(b)(6), resulting in dismissal of one defendant from the case entirely and which led to favorable settlement.
• Changzhou Kaidi Electrical Co., Ltd., et al. v. Okin America, Inc. (D. Md. 2015) – Obtained a jury verdict of no infringement for market leader in linear actuator technology; successfully defeated two motions for summary judgment of infringement and won summary judgment of no willful infringement leading up to trial.
• Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Canon, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex./N.D. Cal. 2014) – Represented leading electronics manufacturer in patent infringement suit involving five patents related to flash memory technology. Drafted briefing that resulted in successful transfer to the Northern District of California.
• L-3 Commc’ns Corp. v. Sony Corp., et al. (D. Del. 2013) – Obtained summary judgment ruling of no infringement for one of the world’s largest technology companies in patent case involving CMOS image sensors; crafted claim construction briefs that led to favorable constructions and the patentee’s withdrawal of over half of the asserted claims; invalidated all asserted patent claims on successful JMOL ruling following jury trial.

Representative ITC Experience: 

• Certain High-Potency Sweeteners, Processes for Making Same, and Products Containing Same (ITC 2022) – Resolved five-patent case involving processes for producing the artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium on rare summary determination victory of invalidity / no technical prong of the domestic industry.
• Certain Mobile Elec. Devices & Laptop Computers (ITC 2021) – Organized team on five-patent case against Apple, covering a range of smartphone and laptop technologies.
• Certain Collapsible and Portable Furniture (ITC 2021) – Led team to trial in dual-patent case involving foldable rocking chairs.
• Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC 2019) – Served as technical lead for ten Respondents in six-patent case brought by Brother; advised clients on redesigned products and successfully obtained clearance of those redesigns by patentee
  
• Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC 2018) – Served as technical lead for several respondents in seven-patent investigation related to printer cartridges; obtained summary determination of no infringement based on favorable claim construction, which was upheld on appeal at the Federal Circuit in May 2020
• Certain Human Milk Oligosaccharides and Methods for Producing the Same (ITC 2018) – Second-chaired trial team in dual-patent case related to production of 2’-fucosyllactose used for synthetic breast milk; persuaded the Commission to reverse ALJ on issue of redesigned process, which clarified key ITC precedent regarding redesigns
• Certain Powered Cover Plates (ITC 2018) – Acted as technical lead for multi-patent cases involving cover plates for electrical wall sockets
• Certain Backpack Chairs (ITC 2017) – Through aggressive discovery and strategic challenges to complainant’s infringement theories, succeeded in convincing complainant to withdraw the complaint, terminating the investigation, prior to claim construction briefing.
• Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and Methods for Manufacturing the Same (ITC 2017) – Served as second chair for Section 337 trial involving four patents directed to aerogel technology.
• Certain High-Potency Sweeteners, Processes for Making Same, and Products Containing Same (ITC 2017) – Defended multiple respondents in case involving patent for artificial sweeteners, which ended with complainant withdrawing the complaint after discovery inquires brought to light an on-sale bar issue.
• Certain Toy Figurines and Toy Sets Containing the Same (ITC 2015) – Represented subsidiary of one of the U.S.’s largest toy manufacturers in investigation involving design patent, trade secret, and copyright infringement claims. Achieved early, favorable settlement.
• Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC 2014) – Defended leading printer cartridge manufacturers in ITC investigation involving nine patents for laser toner cartridges. Oversaw all aspects of case and presented arguments that led to extremely favorable settlement less than one week prior to hearing.
• Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices (ITC 2013) – Defended Fortune 100 technology company in ITC investigation in which both the ALJ and the Commission found no infringement of any of the four asserted patents. Also supported team in briefing to the Commission, which led to new precedent requiring “articles protected by the patent” for licensing-based domestic industries.

Representative IPR Experience:

• Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd. (PTAB 2019-20) – Assisted with defense of ten IPR petitions, six of which were denied institution.
• ZTE Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd. (PTAB 2018) – Persuaded the Board not to institute review on seven separate petitions for inter partes review of patents asserted by client in pending district court litigation.
• LG Elecs., Inc. v. ATI Techs. ULC (PTAB 2016) – Invalidated challenged claims in trio of patents directed to graphic processing technology; thwarted patentee’s attempt to swear behind prior art in all three cases by eliciting favorable cross-examination testimony of patentee’s witnesses and exposing weaknesses in patentee’s 100+ documents offered to support conception, reduction to practice, and reasonable diligence.
• Hewlett-Packard Co. v. U.S. Phillips Corp., et al. (PTAB 2016) – Persuaded Patent Trial and Appeal Board not to institute review of client’s three patents related to audio codec technology.
• Adv. Micro Devices, Inc.  v. LG Elecs., Inc. (PTAB 2016) – Served as technical lead on two IPRs defending the validity of LGE’s patents; prevented petitioner from invaliding all challenged claims of the asserted patents.
• LG Elecs., Inc. v. Mondis Tech. Ltd. (PTAB 2015) – Located crucial prior art and assisted with drafting petitions for inter partes review of patents for video-display control.
• Hewlett-Packard Company v. MCM Portfolio LLC (PTAB 2014) – Represented Fortune 100 company and invalidated all challenged claims of non-practicing entity’s patent for multi-flashcard reader.

George Washington University Law School, JD

Pennsylvania State University, MS

Rowan University, BS, magna cum laude

• New York
• District of Columbia
• New Jersey

Court

• District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• New York State Court of Appeals
• Supreme Court of New Jersey
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• US District Court for the District of Columbia
• US District Court for the District of New Jersey
• US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• US District Court for the Southern District of New York
• US District Court for the Western District of Texas
• US Patent and Trademark Office
• US Supreme Court

• Professorial lecturer at law, George Washington University Law School (2013 – 2020)
• Member, ITC Trial Lawyers Association
• District of Columbia Bar, IP Law Community Steering Committee (Patent Sub-Committee Co-Chair, 2016-17)
• Children’s Law Center Advisory Board Member (2016 – present)
• Federal Circuit Bar Association, International Trade Committee (2018 – 2021)