International Trade Commission

Intellectual Property Litigation


  • For Broadcom Corporation, we successfully asserted patents covering baseband processors used in smartphones. The case involved seven months of intense discovery, including more than 100 depositions and the exchange of several million documents. Chief ALJ Charles Bullock determined that Qualcomm violated Section 337 by infringing Broadcom’s technology and recommended an exclusion order. The case then settled on favorable terms during enforcement proceedings against Qualcomm.
  • For a semiconductor company, WilmerHale won at trial a case that predecessor counsel had all but lost. Before we took on the case, ALJ Paul Luckern had ruled that our client’s chips infringed valid patent claims, but declined to find a Section 337 violation because its opponent had failed to properly authenticate our client’s product manual, on which this ruling was based. When the opponent then refiled its complaint, the company turned to WilmerHale. Before ALJ Robert Rogers, we proved that its opponent had no domestic industry, that the claims were not valid, and that our client’s same chip did not infringe—winning every issue that predecessor counsel had lost.
  • For a GPS semiconductor company, we successfully asserted seven GPS patents against its archrival, and defended against its opponent’s four-patent counterclaim case. We won every patent asserted—both offensively and defensively—leading to commission findings that the opponent’s products violated Section 337 and our client’s did not.
  • For an electronics manufacturer, we won back-to-back trials against a competitor before ALJs Luckern and Bullock on flash memory patents that the competitor has successfully asserted against the other major industry player. In each of our cases, the ALJs found that our client’s accused flash memory chips did not infringe on multiple independent grounds, leading to affirmances both by the full commission and the Federal Circuit.
  • For ASML Holding NV, we won 16 of 16 claims against Nikon before Chief ALJ Bullock, proving no infringement, invalidity, and that Nikon committed inequitable conduct in relation to one patent. The commission affirmed, finding that ASML did not violate Section 337 and terminating the investigation.