T. Vann Pearce, Jr.

Chief Practice Officer, IP & Litigation and IP Counsel

Washington, D.C.

Vann Pearce serves as the Chief Practice Officer for the IP & Litigation Business Units and is a member of the Intellectual Property Group.

As Chief Practice Officer, Vann advises on strategic planning, operations, and management of Orrick’s IP, Employment, Complex Litigation & Dispute Resolution, International Arbitration, and Supreme Court & Appellate practice groups, which comprise more than 300 attorneys globally. His responsibilities include oversight of the units' financial performance, business planning and execution, and lawyer recruiting.

As a lawyer in the firm’s IP group, Vann’s practice focuses on patent litigation and related disputes. He has served as lead counsel in over 20 disputes, including matters with tens to hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, for clients including publicly traded U.S., Japanese, and European companies. He also counsels clients on patent licensing and portfolio development, particularly for companies developing 3D printing-related technologies. Vann co-founded Orrick's 3D printing practice.

Vann previously served as the firm’s U.S. Law School Hiring Partner, overseeing entry-level hiring nationwide.

    • Fujifilm Corp. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (D.D.C., PTAB, Fed. Cir.). Vann was lead counsel for Fujifilm in two inter partes review proceedings, and co-counsel in a related district court litigation, in a case involving digital camera and USB technology. The Orrick team lead by Vann obtained a final decision, through appeal, ruling all asserted claims unpatentable in both IPRs. The matter was resolved shortly afterwards.
    • Panasonic Corp. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc. (N.D. Cal. and PTAB). Vann is lead counsel for Panasonic in an inter partes review proceeding and a related district court litigation involving Bluetooth and mobile app technology. The Orrick team lead by Vann obtained a final decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling all asserted claims unpatentable.
    • Corydoras Technologies LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc. (E.D. Texas). Vann was lead counsel for Best Buy and several of its suppliers in this patent infringement litigation involving mobile phone, tablet, and laptop technology. The matter was resolved during claim construction.
    • Carnival Corp. v. DeCurtis Corp. (S.D. Fl.). Vann is lead counsel for Carnival in this litigation involving breach of contract, patent infringement, trade secret, antitrust, and tort claims related to wearable technology.
    • In the Matter of Certain Modular LED Display Panels and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1114. Vann represented three respondents in an ITC Section 337 investigation. The complainant voluntarily withdrew its complaint and terminated the investigation during expert discovery. Asian-mena Counsel Magazine recognized this matter as its “Disputes Deal of the Year.”
    • In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal e-Writers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1035. Vann represented respondent Shenzhen Howshow Technology in an ITC Section 337 investigation. The complainant voluntarily withdrew its complaint and terminated the investigation during fact discovery. China Business Law Journal recognized this matter as a “Disputes and Investigations Deal of the Year.”
    • Desktop Metal, Inc. v. Markforged, Inc. (D. Mass.). Vann represented leading 3D printer manufacturer Desktop Metal in litigation against a competitor involving claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The matter was resolved during trial.
    • Vann represented a leading technology company in several appellate matters against a competitor involving patents related to touchscreen and wireless communication technology. In the first of these matters, the Federal Circuit overturned ITC rulings that one of our client’s key patents was both anticipated and obvious, and reversed the dispositive claim construction on a second patent. Law360 recognized the Orrick team, including Vann, as “Legal Lions” for this victory (August 8, 2013). In another case, he was instrumental in our client’s successful effort to reverse an unfavorable claim construction on a patent covering touchscreen control functionality.