T. Vann Pearce, Jr.

Vann Pearce is a trial lawyer representing leading technology companies in patent infringement and related litigation and disputes. He has been lead counsel in more than 20 matters, including matters with tens to hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, for clients including publicly traded U.S., Japanese, and European companies.

• Engagements

  • Carnival Corp. v. DeCurtis Corp. (S.D. Fl.). Vann was lead counsel for Carnival through summary judgment in this litigation involving breach of contract, patent infringement, trade secret, antitrust, and tort claims related to Carnival's novel OceanMedallion™ guest engagement system. The Orrick team led by Vann won summary judgment on all claims for damages asserted against Carnival  (antitrust, unfair competition, and tortious interference) as well as all claims that Carnival defrauded the Patent Office. Vann then was a member of the two trial teams that first obtained a $21 million jury verdict for breach of contract and patent infringement and then obtained an injunction in a separate bench trial in a different court. Vann cross-examined the opposing party’s CEO and COO at trial. The Orrick team’s victory in the first trial was recognized in Litigation Daily's Litigators of the Week feature. https://www.orrick.com/en/News/2023/03/Carnival-Corporation-Wins-21-Million-Judgment-in-Patent-Infringement-and-Breach-of-Contract-Trial
  • 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 led 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 was 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 led by Vann obtained a final decision, through appeal, 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.
  • In the Matter of Certain Modular LED Display Panels and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1114. Vann represented three Chinese 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.