• undefined
      • undefined
    1. Home
    2. People
    3. Melehani, Will

    Will Melehani

    Partner

    San Francisco

    Unencumbered by tradition and undaunted by technology, Will brings a fresh approach to IP litigation.

    By delving into each case’s complexities and elegantly connecting those details to a broader technical perspective, Will creatively unravels his opposition’s argument.

    Will uses this approach to defend cutting edge computer, Internet, software companies and life sciences companies with great success, having prevailed in numerous subject matter eligibility challenges. Will's mastery of patent law also allows him to ensure his strategy will withstand appeal, where Will has frequently played a key role in writing and arguing the appellate briefs. Whether handling patent, trademark or trade secrets matters, Will’s creative methodology gives his clients a unique advantage.

    Will is also an enthusiastic participant in Orrick's pro bono efforts, and has obtained successful results for several disadvantaged and low-income pro bono clients.

      • IGT v. Zynga, Inc. – Will represented Zynga in a case where slot machine manufacturing company IGT accused Zynga of infringing six patents related to networked gaming. Zynga defeated IGT's allegations against five of the six patents during the pretrial phase. IGT's accusations concerning the final surviving patent were subject to a 5-day trial in the Western District of Texas, where Will served as a member of the trial team and conducted the direct examination of Zynga's primary technical fact witness.
      • Broadband iTV v. Altice- Will represented Altice in a case brought by a non-practicing entity concerning video-on-demand technology in the ITC. Will primarily managed the invalidity and claim construction issues in the case with a large joint defense group of co-defendant media companies, and the case settled favorably after Altice obtained a favorable claim construction ruling.
      • Broadband iTV v. DISH - Will represented DISH in a case brought by a non-practicing entity concerning video-on-demand technology in the Western District of Texas, and in connection with Inter Partes Review petitions concerning the same patents. The case settled favorably after DISH secured an order transferring the case after multiple mandamus petitions to the Federal Circuit.
      • Google v. Sonos – Will has represented and continues to represent Sonos in connection with multiple cases against Google across various jurisdictions.
      • Innovative Memory Systems, LLC v. global semiconductor manufacturing company. - Will represented a global semiconductor manufacturing company against allegations of patent infringement brought by a non-practicing entity, wherein Will was focused primarily on managing the damages case strategy. The case settled favorably after the court granted Will's Daubert motion and rejected most of the plaintiff's damages theory on the eve of trial.
      • Good Technology Corp. v. MobileIron, Inc. – Will was part of a trial team that successfully defended MobileIron in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Good Technology Corporation involving mobile device management technology. He contributed extensively to pre-trial briefing which substantially narrowed the scope of potential liability and damages in the case. After a two-week trial in the Northern District of California, a jury returned a complete defense verdict, finding that MobileIron did not infringe any of Good Technology's patents and that several of Good Technology's patents were invalid.
      • Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. – Will served as the principal drafter of a successful pre-claim construction motion on the pleadings for Nintendo, resulting in the plaintiff’s software patent being ruled ineligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act. Will drafted the brief defending the order on appeal before the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. Will served as second chair during the oral argument. The Federal Circuit sided with Nintendo and fully affirmed the order. Will also assisted with the successful opposition to Recognicorp’s attempt to seek en banc review.
      • Clear with Computers, LLC v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. – Will served as a member of a joint defense team that successfully obtained a judgment that the asserted e-commerce patent was ineligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act. He also worked on the case’s appeal, which settled favorably after the defendants filed their responsive brief.
      • Colony American Finance, LLC v. El Wakeel – Will served as a member of a team that obtained a temporary restraining order against two former employees to prevent them from utilizing Will’s client’s customer information. Will also successfully compelled the employees’ counterclaims into arbitration. During the case, Will took primarily responsibility of working with the forensic technical experts to develop the evidence of misappropriation used to support the successful application for a temporary restraining order.
      • Scat Enterprises, Inc. v. FCA US LLC - Will represented Scat Enterprises in a trademark infringement litigation. Will worked closely with expert witnesses and was responsible for briefing, expert reports, and several expert depositions. The case ultimately settled.
      • Lotes Co. Ltd. v. Foxconn Electronics, Inc. - Will played a significant role in the discovery, briefing, expert reports and overall case strategy in a patent infringement and breach of contract lawsuit between client Foxconn and Lotes. During the case, will presented at hearings, took depositions, and prepared witnesses and examinations for an evidentiary hearing for Foxconn’s summary judgment motion. After inheriting the case from several other law firms, Will and the Foxconn team were able to improve the client’s position and negotiate a favorable settlement following the evidentiary hearing.
      • Poynt Corp. v. Innowi Inc. - Will represented Poynt Corp. in asserting trade secret and breach of contract claims against a former contract manufacturer after it transitioned into a direct competitor marketing a competing product. The case settled favorably.
      • Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Ericsson, Inc. - Will servied on the appellate team seeking to preserve Ericsson’s win before the PTAB, which ruled that state universities waive their immunity from IPRs when they first assert the challenged patents in district court.
      • Limestone Memory Systems, LLC v. global semiconductor manufacturing company. - Will represented a global semiconductor manufacturing company and its customers against allegations of patent infringement brought by a non-practicing entity. The case settled favorably.