Saqib Siddiqui is an associate in the Intellectual Property group of Mayer Brown's Washington DC office. His practice focuses on protecting his clients’ patent rights in district courts, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) and US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Having started his career as an Electrical Engineer and a Patent Examiner in the USPTO—drafting and prosecuting over a hundred patent applications while going to Law School at night—Saqib’s strength lies in applying his technical expertise to unpackaging complex technologies and develop litigation strategies that that are centered around predicting the attacks his clients’ technical positions will face by the adversaries during litigation and how these attacks will be eventually perceived and countered in front of the jurors and the Court. When other attorneys are subsumed by meeting the immediate deadlines in a particular matter, Saqib is already thinking about how the technical aspects of the matter will evolve through trial. This is why clients with complex technical Intellectual Property assets or products rely on Saqib to manage the technical aspects of their matters at the earliest juncture.
In the words of Patent Litigation Counsel of one of the leading tech companies represented by Mayer Brown: “Saqib is very good in talking technology with our engineers and leading subject matter experts because usually our engineers get very frustrated in working with patent attorneys who cannot speak at the same level and ask very elementary questions about technology.”
Patent Litigation Experience: Saqib has been involved in all stages of District Court and Section 337 (ITC) patent litigation from pre-suit diligence to trial and post-trial. His litigation experience includes analyzing patent portfolios for assertion; formulating claim construction, infringement, and validity positions; taking and defending fact and expert depositions; preparing witnesses for deposition, Markman hearing, and trial; examining witnesses at trial; and drafting motions, Markman briefs, trial briefs and findings of fact. But what sets him apart is the work he does while collaborating with and preparing technical experts that are key witnesses at trial.
Most recently, Saqib patent litigation experience has been concentrated in various aspects of smartphone technologies including standard essential patents (SEPs), Wi-Fi, LTE 4G, 5G, Bluetooth, NFC, GPS, power management, User Interface, image sensors, image processing, and biometric authentication. Overall, Saqib has litigated cases involving a range of technologies, including wireless transmissions by smart meters, loyalty conversion programs, microprocessors, Web browser advertising technology, data redundancy and memory retention techniques in cloud computing, and motion tracking technology implemented in gaming devices.
In 2018, Saqib played an important role in obtaining a $43.3 million verdict from ZTE USA on behalf of Maxell, Ltd., conducting cross examinations of key technical witness at trial even receiving praise from the jury foreman for the cross-examination in a voluntary post-trial survey.
IPR Proceedings: Saqib relies on his patent prosecution experience and familiarity with USPTO procedures to develop strategies for his patent litigation clients that include procedures such as Inter Partes Review, Ex Parte Reexamination, and Covered Business Method Review. Saqib has served as lead counsel for Maxell, Google, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways in multiple Inter Partes Review, Ex Parte Reexamination, and Covered Business Method Review proceedings including “Scor[ing] a Rare Rehearing in AIA Review” for his client.
- Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., (E.D. Tex. 2019, W.D. Tex., Germany, and Japan) - Represented Maxell in numerous cases over a period of two years involving over twenty-five patents related to features of smartphones, tablets, laptops, and smartwatches. Managed the day-to-day technical aspects of the cases including identifying the patents to be asserted and accused functionalities. The cases resulted in a settlement on the first day of the first trial.
- Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Laptop Computers, 337-TA-1215 (ITC) (2020-2021). Represented Maxell in a complex litigation involving five patents related to biometric authentication, Wi-Fi and LTE 4G handover, face detection, video transfer, and white balance correction.
- 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.
- Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device Co. (E.D. Tex. 2017-18 and Dusseldorf) – Represented Maxell in eight-patent case related to cellular devices and tablets resulting in a favorable settlement.
- Maxell, Ltd. v. BLU Products (S.D. Fla. 2017-18) – Represented Maxell in seven-patent case related to cellular devices and tablets resulting in a favorable settlement.
- Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUS USA and ASUSTek (E.D.Tex. and C.D. Cal. 2017-18) – Represented Maxell in multiple cases involving twelve patents related to cellular devices, tablets, and laptops resulting in a favorable settlement.
- Olympus v. Maxell, Ltd. (Delaware 2017-18) – Represented Maxell in a declaratory judgment action involving ten patents related to camera technology; resulting in a favorable settlement and dismissal of the declaratory judgment action.
Godo Kaisa IP Bridge v. Broadcom Corp. et al. (Eastern District of Texas). Represented Broadcom and Avago in this action alleging infringement of six patents directed to semiconductor manufacturing and fabrication processes.
- Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., (Eastern District of Texas). Representing LG Electronics and LG Electronics U.S.A. in multi-patent litigation directed to displays. Obtained transfer of case from Eastern District of Texas to District of New Jersey.
- 511 Innovations, Inc. v. Avago Technologies, Ltd and Avago Technologies US, Inc., (Eastern District of Texas). Represented Avago in this action alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,110,096; 7,397,541; 8,472,102 and 8,786,844 relating to optical sensors that detect proximity in smart phones.
- Petitions for Inter Partes Review by KJ Pretech, Proceeding Nos. IPR2015-01866, IPR2015-01867, and IPR2015-01868 (Patent Trials and Appeals Board). Represented petitioner KJ Pretech in successful IPR challenges to patents directed to backlighting for liquid crystal displays.
- Google v. Brite Smart Corporation in CBM2016-00008, CBM2016-00021, and CBM2016-00022. Lead Counsel for Google in instituted Covered Business Method Review of patents directed to detecting click fraud in online advertising. Obtained a rare request for rehearing in CBM2016-00008 related to the obviousness ground.
- Delta Air Lines et al. v. Loyalty Conversion in CBM 2014-00095 and CBM 2014-00096. Lead Counsel for Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, Frontier Airlines, US Airways, and United Airlines in the Covered Business Method Reviews of US Patent Nos. 8,313,023 and 8,511,550.
- Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (Eastern District of Texas). Representing defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in a patent infringement case related to the technology of controlling display parameters of televisions and communication interfaces between televisions and external devices.
- Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (Eastern District of Texas). Represented defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in a patent infringement case related to the practice of 3GPP standards and Android functionality in smartphones.
- Symbology v. JetBlue (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue in a patent infringement case related to the technology of scanning and processing QR codes.
- Loramax LLC v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas). Represented Air Canada, Frontier Airlines, JetBlue, Porter Airlines, and WestJet Airlines in a patent infringement case related to the technology of sending communications to user based on prioritized communication preferences.
- Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas). Represented United Airlines, Delta Airlines, US Airways, and Frontier Airlines against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Lead counsel for American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways in CBM Petitions filed and instituted at the USPTO for the asserted patents.
- Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc. et al., (Eastern District of Texas). Represented Dell and Hewlett-Packard against Innovative Display Technologies in a patent infringement case involving six asserted patents. The technology includes the structure of backlight units LCD display components of computer and/or laptop monitors.
- Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics, et al., (District of Delaware). Represented LG Electronics in a patent infringement case involving eight asserted patents. The technology includes the structure of backlight units LCD display components of computer and/or laptop monitors.
- Brite Smart Corp. v. Google, Inc., (Eastern District of Texas). Represented Google in a patent infringement case involving five asserted patents. The technology includes detection of fraudulent clicks on online advertisements.
- TransData, Inc. Smart Meter Patent Litigation, MDL Case No. 2309 (Western District of Oklahoma). Represented Alabama Power Co., Georgia Power Co., Mississippi Power Co., and Wisconsin Power and Light Co. in a patent infringement case related to wireless transmission of meter readings in smart utility meters.
- Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. (Western District of Missouri). Represented Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case. The technology included routing of data transmission packets over fiber optics networks such as the Google Fiber System.
- Parallel Iron LLC., v. Google (District of Delaware). Represented Google against Parallel Iron’s claims of patent infringement. The technology includes fault detection techniques implemented in memory devices used in, for example, data centers.
- B.E. Technology Inc., v. Google et al. (Western District of Tennessee). Represented Google and Motorola Mobility against B.E. Tech’s claims of patent infringement. The technology includes user interface and advertising techniques implemented in Web browsers and Android smartphones and tablets.
- Impulse Technology Inc., v. Microsoft Corporation et al. (District of Delaware). Represented Impulse against Microsoft and other Xbox game manufacturers for infringement of 7 patents directed to implementation of motion tracking technology in Xbox Kinect and video games.
- Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Related Software, 337-TA-808 (ITC). Represented HTC in a complex litigation involving 8 patents related to mobile device architecture, Wi-Fi and LTE 4G, and graphical user interfaces.
- Certain Computing Devices with Associated Instruction Sets and Software, 337-TA-812 (ITC). Represented Via Technologies et al. in an investigation involving 5 patents related to instruction sets implemented in microprocessors.
- Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software, 337-TA-721 (ITC). Represented HTC in an investigation involving power management and graphical user interfaces of mobile devices.
Georgetown University Law Center, JD
University of Houston, BSc, Electrical Engineering
- District of Columbia
- US Patent and Trademark Office
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit