1. Home
  2. People
  3. Pearce, T. Vann

T. Vann Pearce, Jr.

Chief Practice Officer – IP & Litigation

Washington, D.C.

Vann wins difficult intellectual property disputes and helps clients use their intellectual property to build their companies.

As a litigator of patent infringement and related matters, he has obtained judgments, dismissals, and favorable outcomes in federal district courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and in inter partes review proceedings. As a counselor on patent licensing and portfolio development, Vann crafts precise strategies which minimize legal threats and capitalize on emerging industry trends. Whether resolving today’s disputes or helping his clients plan for the future, Vann understands how to lead teams to successful outcomes, on budget, and in demanding circumstances.

Like his clients, Vann approaches his work with an entrepreneur’s mindset. Vann co-founded and is Co-Chair of Orrick's 3D Printing practice. Vann frequently speaks at conferences and universities around the world about the intersection of 3D printing/additive manufacturing and intellectual property law.

Vann draws upon his technical background to quickly understand complex inventions ranging from semiconductors, to imaging and displays, to chemistry. He holds a chemical engineering degree and worked in the medical device and biotech fields before law school.

    • Fujifilm Corp. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (D.D.C. and PTAB). Mr. Pearce was lead counsel for Fujifilm in two inter partes review proceedings in a case involving digital camera and USB technology. The Orrick team lead by Mr. Pearce obtained a final decision, through appeal, ruling all asserted claims unpatentable in both proceedings. The matter was resolved shortly afterwards.
    • Panasonic Corp. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc. (N.D. Cal. and PTAB). Mr. Pearce is lead counsel for Panasonic in an inter partes review proceeding in a case involving Bluetooth, digital camera, and mobile app technology. The Orrick team lead by Mr. Pearce 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). Mr. Pearce is lead counsel for Best Buy and several of its suppliers in this patent infringement litigation in a case involving mobile phone, tablet, and laptop technology.
    • Realtime Data LLC v. InfoVista Corporation  (D. Del.). Mr. Pearce was lead counsel for InfoVista in this patent infringement litigation concerning digital data compression technology, which was resolved before discovery commenced.
    • In the Matter of Certain Modular LED Display Panels and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1114. Mr. Pearce represented respondents Shanghai Sansi Electronic Engineering Co., CreateLED Electronics Co., and Yaham Optoelectronics Co. 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. Mr. Pearce 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.). Mr. Pearce 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.
    • Mr. Pearce 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. These rulings revived our client’s claims of infringement as to both patents at issue. Law360 recognized the Orrick team, including Mr. Pearce, as "Legal Lions" for this victory (August 8, 2013). In another case, Mr. Pearce was instrumental in our client’s successful effort to reverse an unfavorable claim construction on a patent covering touchscreen control functionality.
    • EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage, Inc. (D. Del.). Mr. Pearce represented plaintiff EMC in a patent infringement lawsuit against its competitor, Pure Storage, involving data storage technologies. Mr. Pearce directed preparation of EMC's damages case, and the infringement and validity case on one asserted patent, through expert discovery. He also successfully argued a discovery motion hearing. A jury awarded EMC $14 million in damages after trial.
    • WordCheck Tech LLC v. EMC Corp. (E.D. Tex.). Mr. Pearce represented EMC in a patent infringement lawsuit involving data loss prevention systems. Following the claim construction hearing, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed case with prejudice, with no monetary payment required by our client.
    • In the Matter of Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-640. Mr. Pearce represented respondent Panasonic Corporation in an ITC Section 337 investigation. The complainant voluntarily withdrew its complaint and terminated the investigation shortly before the hearing.
    • Mr. Pearce represented a leading technology company in an appeal involving smartphones, successfully upholding a jury verdict of invalidity. The Federal Circuit issued a summary (Rule 36) affirmance in favor of our client shortly after oral argument.
    • FastVDO, LLC v. Panasonic Corp. (D. Del.). Mr. Pearce represented several defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit involving H.264 video encoding. The defendants won on all key claim constructions in a ruling issued just four days after the claim construction hearing. Mr. Pearce was a primary author of the winning claim construction briefs. The case settled shortly afterwards.
    • Mr. Pearce has managed the patent portfolio development and strategy for several clients, particularly companies developing 3D printing-related technologies.

Insights

News