Bas de Blank

Having handled dozens of ITC investigations, Bas knows an exceptional legal strategy is not enough. The Commission’s aggressive speed and complexity are unmatched, and can easily overwhelm. Success requires a tenacious focus, and deep knowledge of jurisdictional, procedural and legal issues. Clients such as Sonos, Bosch and Foxconn hire Bas for precisely that mix of skill and dedication.

• Mes expériences

  U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) cases:

  Bas has spent 25 years focused on Section 337 patent cases before the International Trade Commission and served as head of Orrick's ITC practice. Bas has represented clients such as NVIDIA, Siliconware, Acer, Nanya, Mosel Vitelic and Hitachi in over a dozen ITC investigations. The following cases are representative of his accomplishments.

  • In the Matter of Certain TOPCon Solar Cells, Modules, Panels, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation Nos. 337-TA-1422/1425). Bas represents global green energy industry leader Trina Solar in a multi-forum patent enforcement campaign against competitors Runergy of China and Adani of India.
  • Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Device and Product Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-3729). Secured early defensive victory for Etron Technology Inc. of Taiwan before the U.S. International Trade Commission, with judgement that the patent infringement complaint lodged against Etron’s semiconductor chip imports did not warrant institution of the Section 337 investigation sought. Orrick’s team advocated early and compellingly to the Commission that the complaint did not sufficiently allege importation, domestic industry, infringement, or otherwise—causing complainant to amend. We again illuminated deficiencies as to the amended complaint to the Commission, leading it to deny institution—an extremely rare, decisive, efficient win for our client before the ITC.
  • In the Matter of Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-724). Bas represented a leading technology company before the ITC concerning image compression technology. The complainant sought an exclusion order that would have prohibited the importation of a majority of our client's products. After a hearing and briefing, the full Commission determined there was no violation of any asserted patent by our client.&
  • In the Matter of Certain HSP Modems, Software and Hardware Components Thereof, and Product Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-439). Bas represented PCTEL, Inc. in litigation before the ITC involving PCTEL's assertion that ESS Technology, Inc. infringed two PCTEL patents concerning Host Signal Processing modems. After trial, PCTEL's patents were found valid and enforceable and ESS's products were found to infringe.
  • In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-414). Bas represented Mosel Vitelic, Inc. in litigation before the ITC involving Mosel's alleged infringement of four global semiconductor manufacturing company semiconductor processing patents. After trial, the three remaining and asserted global semiconductor manufacturing company patents were declared not infringed, invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

  Patent Cases in Federal Courts:

  Bas is a trial attorney and much of his work is in various district courts throughout the United States. Bas represents both plaintiffs and defendants and finds that this balanced approach helps him best serve his clients. While most patent cases settle -- which is why it is critical to have experienced counsel develop a comprehensive case strategy -- Bas has tried eight district court patent cases representing clients such as EMC, Brocade, and Fairchild Semiconductor. Representative district court cases include the following:

  • Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. Bas is lead counsel representing Bosch in five separate litigations related to Bosch's revolutionary portfolio of telehealth patents. Bosch has asserted these patents in separate cases against a number of competitors, including Medtronic, Cardiocom, MyHealth, and ExpressMD.
  • Oasis Research LLC v. EMC Corp. Bas represented EMC Corporation in a patent infringement action brought by Oasis Research, LLC. After a week long trial, an Eastern District of Texas jury found that all of the patents asserted against EMC were invalid.
  • Brocade v. A10 Networks.Bas represented Brocade in a patent infringement, trade secrets misappropriation and copyright theft action in the Northern District of California. After the jury awarded Brocade over $112 million in damages, the judge entered an injunction prohibiting A10 from continuing to infringe Brocade's patents or use Brocade's trade secrets.
  • Clouding Corp. v. VMware Inc. and EMC Corp. Bas represents VMware and EMC in a case where plaintiff Clouding Corp. asserted infringement of 10 patents. The case is effectively stayed while the Patent Office considers the validity of the asserted patents in a number of IPR proceedings brought by Bas.
  • Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Bas represents CMU in the Federal Circuit appeal defending the judgment that Marvell owes CMU over a billion dollars in patent damages.
  • ViaSat, Inc. v. Space Systems/Loral, LLC. Bas represented SSL in a patent infringement case related to geosynchronous communication satellites.
  • Mosel Vitelic Corp. v. global semiconductor manufacturing company. Mr. de Blank represented Mosel in litigation before the Delaware district court involving Mosel's alleged infringement of global semiconductor manufacturing company's semiconductor processing patents and the semiconductor manufacturing company's alleged infringement of Mosel's patents. Extensive press reports promoted that the case was settled favorably for Mosel on the first day of trial.

  Inter Partes Review before the United States Patent And Trademark Appeal Board:

  Leveraging his technical and litigation experience, Bas has represented clients in over 30 IPR proceedings, first chaired over two dozen, and conducted a dozen IPR trials. The Patent Office has instituted IPR proceedings and cancelled claims in response to all of Bas's petitions. On behalf of patent owners, Bas has successfully convinced the Patent Office to deny or limit review and to terminate instituted proceedings. Some of Bas's representative IPRs are as follows:

  • IPR2013-00439; IPR2013-00460; and IPR2014-00436. Representing Patent Owner Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., Bas convinced the Patent Office to deny IPR petitions brought against several Bosch patents.
  • IPR2014-00488, IPR2014-00607, and IPR2014-00691. In these proceedings, Bas won rare victories when the Patent Office authorized discovery and then granted Bas's motion to terminate the IPRs based on the petitioner's failure to identify the real parties in interest. The Petitioner appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit, but that Court granted Bas's motion to dismiss the appeal.
  • IPR2014-01216, IPR2014-01217, and IPR2014-01218. Bas represented the petitioner in these proceedings. The Patent Office instituted the IPRs and, after a trial, cancelled all of the challenged claims.
  • IPR2014-01292. In this proceeding, Bas represented the petitioner and convinced the Patent Office to institute review. During the IPR, the Patent Owner moved to amend the claims. After the trial, the Patent Office not only invalidated all of the challenged claims but also denied the proposed amendment.

  California State Court Cases:

  While Bas focuses on patent litigation before federal courts, the ITC, and the Patent Office, he also has significant state court experience. While working at the Santa Clara District Attorney's office, Bas first chaired seven criminal trials and has also led pro bono trials in California state court.