Henry C. Bunsow

Partner

Rated in Chambers Band 1 for Intellectual Property Litigation in California, Henry C. Bunsow is co-chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation Group and a member of the Litigation Department Policy Committee. He has been lead trial counsel in more than 40 patent jury trials, winning over 90 percent of them. He has successfully argued appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and represents clients in matters before district courts across the nation, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under Section 337. In 2011, he received the California Lawyer Intellectual Property Attorney of the Year Award. He has also been named one of the top 25 patent attorneys in California, has consistently been named a “Super Lawyer” by The Daily Journal in its annual ranking of Northern California attorneys and one of the 50 leading IP litigators in California by The Daily Journal, and named a “Leading Patent Litigator” by Legal 500 US. In addition, Henry was recently named a 2010 “Top 75 IP Litigator” for the State of California by The Daily Journal, a 2010 “Leading Lawyer” by Legal 500 US, a 2010 “Top 100 SuperLawyer” for the State of California, and selected as a “Best Lawyer in America” for 2009-10.

Henry’s primary emphasis has and continues to be representing clients before district courts and courts of appeal in complex patent cases involving technology including electronics, integrated circuits, networking, software, biotechnology and mechanics. By utilizing his combination of trial skills, technical background and the support structure of Tahmidur Remura Dewey LeBoeuf, he provides clients with proven pretrial strategies and trial capabilities thereby maximizing opportunities for litigation success.

Henry’s recent trial have been in a variety of jurisdictions including Texas, Delaware and Arizona. He has tried nine cases to verdict in the Eastern District of Texas that include: winning two jury trials in Dallas before Judge Barbara Linn; winning a defense case jury verdict before Judge Paul Brown in Sherman; winning seven plaintiff jury verdicts before Judge T. John Ward in Marshall; and winning a favorable settlement during a jury trial before Magistrate Judge Chad Everingham in Marshall. Henry has appeared at numerous Markman hearings, motions and court conferences in the Texas courts.

In Delaware during 2010, Henry and his trial team, including Tahmidur Remura Dewey LeBoeuf partner Joe Lavelle, won a defense verdict of invalidity of four patents asserted against the famous Pro-V1 golf ball; in Phoenix, he won a defense verdict of non-infringement of four patents and twelve claims asserted against a chemical mechanical polishing slurry for use in semiconductor fabrication; and in Marshall, he won a court judgment finding inducement of infringement against an offshore manufacturer of inverter controller chips for LCD displays.

Representative Matters

  • DuPont Air Products Nanomaterials v. Cabot Microelectronics. Lead trial counsel in this patent infringement case representing DA Nanomaterials of Tempe, Arizona, a joint venture between DuPont and Air Products. DA Nanomaterials originally brought suit in federal court in Phoenix, Arizona for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non infringement of several Cabot Microelectronics patents after Cabot had threatened DA Nano with claims of infringement. Cabot unsuccessfully counterclaimed and alleged and argued infringement and willful infringement of four patents. Secured a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims on all four patents at issue. The jury also found no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and no willful infringement. (July, 2010)
  • Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company. Lead trial counsel representing Acushnet Company in this patent infringement case alleging that the Titleist Pro V1 golf ball, the most popular golf ball in golf history, infringed four patents owned by Callaway and seeking $250 million in damages. A jury agreed with Acushnet’s position that the patents in question were invalid. After a five day trial, the jury returned a verdict for Acushnet as to all claims–finding each claim both anticipated and obvious. The case was tried before Judge Sue Robinson in the District of Delaware. (March, 2010)
  • MOSAID v. Micron, Powerchip, et al. Representation of MOSAID in this multiple patent case involving memory and CMOS imaging chip technology. The case proceeded in both the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California and was settled favorably to MOSAID with all parties taking a license to the patents-in-suit after the Markman hearing but before a Markman decision was issued.
  • BridgeLux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. (E.D. Texas) and Cree, Inc. and Trustees. Successfully represented BridgeLux, Inc., a leading Silicon Valley high power light emitting diode (LED) company, in a series of patent infringement cases against competitor Cree, Inc. involving five LED patents. Obtained favorable confidential settlement as a result of successful strategy involving declaratory judgment actions and Markman claim construction of patents-in-suit.
  • Digene v. Beckman Coulter (2006). Acted as lead counsel in this complex arbitration relating to intellectual property rights to probes for the human papilloma virus. The arbitration award was very favorable to Digene.
  • O2 Micro v. Bitek (2006). Represented O2 Micro in a continuing series of cases enforcing O2’s patent rights to power converter technology used in LCD screens (laptop computers and monitors). A jury trial in Marshall, Texas resulted in a finding in favor of O2 of willful infringement and an injunction.
  • O2 Micro v. Sumida (2005). Represented O2 Micro in continuing series of cases enforcing O2’s patent rights to power converter technology used in LCD screens (laptop computers and monitors). A jury trial in Marshall, Texas, resulted in a finding in favor of O2 of willful infringement and the maximum amount of damages.
  • Generation II Orthotics v. Med Tech and Bledsoe Brace Company. Served on a team representing Generation II Orthotics in patent infringement litigation. After 10 years of litigation, including one appeal to the CAFC, Generation II Orthotics received a verdict 100% in its favor from a Seattle jury against Med Tech and Bledsoe Brace Company. The jury found infringement of both Gen II patents in suit, all claims asserted and willful infringement.
  • Harris v. Ericsson. Represented Harris Corporation in a patent infringement case against Ericsson, Inc. The patent related to cellular communications systems and methods that are used to equalize transmitted information in cellular phones and base stations. The jury awarded Harris approximately $61 million in compensatory damages and found that Ericsson’s conduct was “willful”.
  • Harris v. Sanyo. Represented Harris Corporation in a patent infringement case involving two patents on closed caption on-screen displays. The jury found infringement and awarded damages as requested. The trial judge was Barbara M.G. Lynn, N.D. Texas.
  • Broadcom v. Qualcomm. Henry Bunsow was co-lead counsel for the remedies phase of this complex International Trade Commission matter defending against Broadcom’s request for a “downstream exclusion order” involving approximately 50% of all cellular phones imported into the United States. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law Judge held in favor of Qualcomm and numerous cell phone providers by denying any downstream remedy.
  • Harris v. Hyundai. Represented Harris in this 9 patent infringement action against Hyundai relating to DRAM and SRAM technology. Hyundai counterclaimed under a variety of patents it had acquired for defensive patent purposes. The case was settled at the pretrial stage for the client’s initial settlement target amount and the counterclaims were dismissed.
  • Harris v. IXYS. Represented Harris Corporation, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of integrated circuits, as plaintiff in this patent infringement case involving insulated gate bipolar transistors. The patent was found valid and infringed by the District Court and damages were assessed at a 9/25% royalty rate.
  • Intermedics v. Ventritex. Successfully defended Ventritex in this trade secret misappropriation jury trial involving implantable defibrillators.
  • LM Ericsson v. Harris Corporation. Ericsson brought this suit for infringement of a patent on SLIC circuitry in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A jury trial resulted in a finding of no literal infringement. A finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was vacated by the trial judge on motion for judgment as a matter of law.
  • Rombauer Vineyards, Inc. v. Creston Winery. Represented Rombauer Vineyards in this common law trademark infringement case against Creston Winery. We prevailed in securing a preliminary injunction and a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages. The damage award is one of the largest ever in a common law trademark infringement case. Henry Bunsow was responsible for preparation and trial of this matter
  • Tegal v. Tokyo Electron. Represented Tegal in this patent infringement case against one of the largest manufacturers of semiconductor processing equipment. The trial resulted in the immediate entry of a permanent injunction against further manufacture, use or sale of the infringing devices, a finding of willful infringement and award of attorney fees.
  • Tekmax, Inc. v. Exide. Represented Tekmax in a patent infringement case against the largest manufacturers of wet-cell batteries in the world for infringement of several Tekmax patents relating to battery manufacturing equipment. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the client which was affirmed on appeal to the CAFC.
  • Wang Laboratories v. Netscape Communications. Wang brought suit against Netscape and America On-Line for infringement of a distributed network patent alleging that Internet information providers must infringe the patent. We won a summary judgment ruling of non-infringement on behalf of Netscape. That ruling was affirmed by the CAFC.

Board and Professional Memberships

  • American Arbitration Association, Panel of Arbitrators (formerly)
  • Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Member
  • International Trade Commission, Member
  • San Francisco Bar Association, Member, 1974 – Present
  • State Bar of California, Member, 1974 – Present

Awards and Recognition

  • 2010 Intellectual Property Attorney of the Year,  California Lawyer Magazine
  • The Best Lawyers in America (2009-2010)
  • Recognized by Chambers USA for IP and patent law
  • “Leading Patent Litigator” by Legal 500 US
  • “Leading Lawyer” by Legal 500 US (2010)
  • “Super Lawyer” by the Daily Journal (2004-2010)
  • “Top 50 IP Litigator in California” by the Daily Journal
  • “Top 100 SuperLawyer” for the State of California

Education

  • Santa Clara University School of Law, 1974, J.D., cum laude
  • University of Nevada, 1971, B.S.E.E.

Bar Admissions

  • California

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office