Bryan A. Kohm
415-875-2404
bkohm@fenwick.com
Partner
Litigation
Bryan A.
Kohm
Bryan A.
Kohm
Partner
Litigation
Bryan practices intellectual property litigation, with a focus on representing high technology and life science companies in patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation disputes. He handles disputes in federal and state courts throughout the country, and has extensive experience in the most active patent venues, such as Delaware, California, Texas, and Florida, as well as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Bryan is also the Chair of Fenwick’s International Trade Commission practice.
Bryan is ranked among the leading patent litigators by IAM Patent 1000 (2020 – 2022) and as one of the leading litigators in America by Lawdragon 500 (2022). He has also been recognized as a "Rising Star" in the area of IP Litigation by Northern California Super Lawyers (2013 – 2014). He has been elected to the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation and previously served as co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Committee on Intellectual Property Litigation.
- In re: Cray – Bryan represented Cray in its petition for writ of mandamus after Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas denied Cray’s transfer motion in a patent infringement case. The team successfully overturned the four-factor test used by the Eastern District of Texas, leading to the landmark decision on what is considered a “regular and established place of business” and establishing that a defendant must have a physical location in the district in order for the venue to be proper.
- In the Matter of Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products – Bryan represents Lumileds in an investigation brought by Lighting Science Group before the International Trade Commission seeking to preclude the importation of Lumileds’ LEDs. Bryan obtained summary determination of no infringement and no domestic industry for two of the three asserted patents. Bryan led the trial team to a clean sweep at trial on the remaining patent, obtaining a finding of no infringement, no domestic industry and patent invalidity.
- Data Scape v. Pandora Media – Bryan represented Pandora against claims brought by Data Scape on patents directed to synching playlists across devices. Following three attempts by Data Scape to amend its complaint, Bryan obtained dismissal of the action on the ground that the patents were invalid for claiming patent ineligible subject matter.
- Raytheon Company v. Cray Inc. – Bryan defended Cray against Raytheon’s claims that Cray infringed four patents directed high performance computers and job management software. Raytheon Raytheon dropped its claims as to two patents after Bryan’s deposition of its expert. Bryan then obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on the remaining claims.
- Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc. – Bryan served as trial counsel for Silver Peak in a jury trial, resulting in a verdict of infringement by Riverbed of two of Silver Peak’s patents. The case began when Riverbed filed a complaint against competitor Silver Peak, asserting infringement of its patents. Silver Peak counterclaimed with its own patents. After successfully staying Riverbed’s claims pending reexamination, Bryan assisted Silver Peak in turning the tables on Riverbed by obtaining a summary judgment of direct infringement of one patent and a jury verdict of indirect infringement of the same patent, as well as of direct and indirect infringement of a second patent.
- Huawei Technologies v. CNEX Labs – Represented CNEX Labs in trade secret dispute brought by Huawei relating to controllers for solid state drives. Huawei filed trade secret claims against CNEX and one of its founders for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets obtained by the founder while employed at Huawei. CNEX counterclaimed with its own trade secret claims. Following a three-week trial, the jury issued a verdict in CNEX’s favor, rejecting Huawei’s claims and finding that Huawei had misappropriated CNEX’s trade secrets.
- Rothschild Location Technologies v. Webtech Wireless – Represented Webtech Wireless in claims brought by a prolific non-practicing entity alleging infringement by Webtech Wireless’s fleet tracking system. Bryan obtained a dismissal without any compensation being paid prior to discovery.
- In the Matter of Certain Biometric Scanning Devices – Bryan served as trial counsel in the defense of a Korean manufacturer of fingerprint detection devices in an investigation pending before the International Trade Commission. The matter is widely recognized for raising novel issues relating to the scope of the ITC’s authority to issue exclusion orders where the underlying violation was based on a finding of induced infringement. The issue was eventually decided by a 6-4 vote of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc.
- In the Matter of Certain Laundry and Household Cleaning Products and Related Packaging – Represented Industrias AlEn, S.A. C.V. and AlEn USA in an ITC investigation brought by Clorox involving claims of trademark infringement and dilution. The matter settled on favorable terms, resulting in AlEn’s continued ability to import its cleaning products including the disputed Pinol branded laundry products.
- The Laryngeal Mask Company v. Ambu A/S – Represented Ambu, a leading manufacturer of medical devices, in a patent infringement action brought by a competitor. Bryan assisted Ambu in obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
- St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. – Bryan represented Hewlett-Packard Company in a patent infringement action filed by St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants relating to digital cameras. The matter was resolved with HP winning summary judgement of non-infringement.
- Select Notifications Media, LLC v. OpenDNS, Inc. – Bryan represented OpenDNS in a patent infringement action filed by Select Notifications Media relating to software for redirecting failed domain lookup traffic. The matter resolved very favorably for OpenDNS following a Markman hearing.
- BrandPort, Inc. v. Virgin Mobile USA, LLC – Bryan assisted Virgin Mobile in obtaining a complete defense victory in a trade secret action. BrandPort filed suit alleging that Virgin Mobile misappropriated 55 of its trade secrets disclosed in a request for proposal process.
- HBAC Matchmaker Media, Inc. v. Ustream, Inc. – Bryan represented Ustream in a patent infringement action filed by HBAC Matchmaker Media relating to targeting of video advertisements. Bryan negotiated a dismissal without prejudice in favor of Ustream without any compensation being provided to HBAC Matchmaker Media.
- In re: Cray – Bryan represented Cray in its petition for writ of mandamus after Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas denied Cray’s transfer motion in a patent infringement case. The team successfully overturned the four-factor test used by the Eastern District of Texas, leading to the landmark decision on what is considered a “regular and established place of business” and establishing that a defendant must have a physical location in the district in order for the venue to be proper.
- In the Matter of Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products – Bryan represents Lumileds in an investigation brought by Lighting Science Group before the International Trade Commission seeking to preclude the importation of Lumileds’ LEDs. Bryan obtained summary determination of no infringement and no domestic industry for two of the three asserted patents. Bryan led the trial team to a clean sweep at trial on the remaining patent, obtaining a finding of no infringement, no domestic industry and patent invalidity.
- Data Scape v. Pandora Media – Bryan represented Pandora against claims brought by Data Scape on patents directed to synching playlists across devices. Following three attempts by Data Scape to amend its complaint, Bryan obtained dismissal of the action on the ground that the patents were invalid for claiming patent ineligible subject matter.
- Raytheon Company v. Cray Inc. – Bryan defended Cray against Raytheon’s claims that Cray infringed four patents directed high performance computers and job management software. Raytheon Raytheon dropped its claims as to two patents after Bryan’s deposition of its expert. Bryan then obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on the remaining claims.
- Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc. – Bryan served as trial counsel for Silver Peak in a jury trial, resulting in a verdict of infringement by Riverbed of two of Silver Peak’s patents. The case began when Riverbed filed a complaint against competitor Silver Peak, asserting infringement of its patents. Silver Peak counterclaimed with its own patents. After successfully staying Riverbed’s claims pending reexamination, Bryan assisted Silver Peak in turning the tables on Riverbed by obtaining a summary judgment of direct infringement of one patent and a jury verdict of indirect infringement of the same patent, as well as of direct and indirect infringement of a second patent.
- Huawei Technologies v. CNEX Labs – Represented CNEX Labs in trade secret dispute brought by Huawei relating to controllers for solid state drives. Huawei filed trade secret claims against CNEX and one of its founders for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets obtained by the founder while employed at Huawei. CNEX counterclaimed with its own trade secret claims. Following a three-week trial, the jury issued a verdict in CNEX’s favor, rejecting Huawei’s claims and finding that Huawei had misappropriated CNEX’s trade secrets.
- Rothschild Location Technologies v. Webtech Wireless – Represented Webtech Wireless in claims brought by a prolific non-practicing entity alleging infringement by Webtech Wireless’s fleet tracking system. Bryan obtained a dismissal without any compensation being paid prior to discovery.
- In the Matter of Certain Biometric Scanning Devices – Bryan served as trial counsel in the defense of a Korean manufacturer of fingerprint detection devices in an investigation pending before the International Trade Commission. The matter is widely recognized for raising novel issues relating to the scope of the ITC’s authority to issue exclusion orders where the underlying violation was based on a finding of induced infringement. The issue was eventually decided by a 6-4 vote of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc.
- In the Matter of Certain Laundry and Household Cleaning Products and Related Packaging – Represented Industrias AlEn, S.A. C.V. and AlEn USA in an ITC investigation brought by Clorox involving claims of trademark infringement and dilution. The matter settled on favorable terms, resulting in AlEn’s continued ability to import its cleaning products including the disputed Pinol branded laundry products.
- The Laryngeal Mask Company v. Ambu A/S – Represented Ambu, a leading manufacturer of medical devices, in a patent infringement action brought by a competitor. Bryan assisted Ambu in obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
- St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. – Bryan represented Hewlett-Packard Company in a patent infringement action filed by St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants relating to digital cameras. The matter was resolved with HP winning summary judgement of non-infringement.
- Select Notifications Media, LLC v. OpenDNS, Inc. – Bryan represented OpenDNS in a patent infringement action filed by Select Notifications Media relating to software for redirecting failed domain lookup traffic. The matter resolved very favorably for OpenDNS following a Markman hearing.
- BrandPort, Inc. v. Virgin Mobile USA, LLC – Bryan assisted Virgin Mobile in obtaining a complete defense victory in a trade secret action. BrandPort filed suit alleging that Virgin Mobile misappropriated 55 of its trade secrets disclosed in a request for proposal process.
- HBAC Matchmaker Media, Inc. v. Ustream, Inc. – Bryan represented Ustream in a patent infringement action filed by HBAC Matchmaker Media relating to targeting of video advertisements. Bryan negotiated a dismissal without prejudice in favor of Ustream without any compensation being provided to HBAC Matchmaker Media.
- Adobe/Omniture
- BAE Systems Imaging Solutions
- CNEX Labs
- Ellation
- eSilicon
- Hewlett-Packard
- Intuit
- OpenDNS
- Pandora
- Silver Peak Systems
- Supercell Oy
- Adobe/Omniture
- BAE Systems Imaging Solutions
- CNEX Labs
- Ellation
- eSilicon
- Hewlett-Packard
- Intuit
- OpenDNS
- Pandora
- Silver Peak Systems
- Supercell Oy
Recognition Recognition Recognition
Recognition Recognition Recognition
Recognition
IAM Patent 1000
2020 - 2022
Recognized Bryan for patent litigation and patent prosecution in California.
The Legal 500
2020 - 2022
Recognized Bryan for his work in patent litigation.
Super Lawyers
2013 - 2014
Recognized Bryan as a "Rising Star" for IP Litigation in California.
Lawdragon
2022
Recognized Bryan for IP Litigation in its 500 Leading Litigators in America guide.
Recognition
IAM Patent 1000
2020 - 2022
Recognized Bryan for patent litigation and patent prosecution in California.
The Legal 500
2020 - 2022
Recognized Bryan for his work in patent litigation.
Super Lawyers
2013 - 2014
Recognized Bryan as a "Rising Star" for IP Litigation in California.
Lawdragon
2022
Recognized Bryan for IP Litigation in its 500 Leading Litigators in America guide.