Ravi Ranganath
650-335-7614
rranganath@fenwick.com
Partner
Litigation
Ravi
Ranganath
Ravi
Ranganath
Partner
Litigation
A staunch advocate for his clients, Ravi has a proven track record of successfully representing high tech companies in high-stakes litigation. Ravi focuses his practice on patent and licensing disputes and efficiently and effectively oversees major litigation portfolios, delivering results on time and on budget.
Ravi has expertise in a variety of technologies, including cloud computing, natural language processing, video decoding, e-commerce, and software and hardware design. He pairs this knowledge with clear and concise prose to effectively communicate technical issues.
Committed to providing his clients with effective and efficient dispute resolution strategies, Ravi has experience with all aspects of litigation, including summary judgment, trial and appeal. He has successfully defended clients in jurisdictions throughout the country, including the Northern District of California, Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, District of Delaware, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and has also represented clients in Section 337 investigations instituted by the U.S. International Trade Commission.
- Amazon.com
- Audible
- AutoX
- Meta
- Molekule
- Zillow
- Amazon.com
- Audible
- AutoX
- Meta
- Molekule
- Zillow
- Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al
(W.D. Tex) (W.D. Tex.): Ravi served on a trial team that successfully invalidated five patents asserted by plaintiff, Broadband iTV, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In the order, Judge Albright found the plaintiff’s patents covered generic ideas and where thus invalid. The ruling put an end to BBiTV’s case in which it alleged that Amazon Prime Video, accessed via Fire TV, Fire tablets, and mobile apps, infringes five patents related to video-on-demand.
- Freshub, Inc. et al v. Amazon.com Inc. et al (W.D. Tex.): Ravi served on a trial team that successfully secured a defense verdict for Amazon in a patent dispute in the Western District of Texas against competitor Freshub, which was seeking $246 million in damages; a jury found that Amazon’s Alexa-powered smart home devices did not infringe patents held by Freshub.
- Innovation Sciences v. Amazon (E.D. Tex.): Ravi served on a trial team that successfully secured a defense verdict of non-infringement and invalidity, including a rare jury verdict relating to patent ineligibility, for defendant Amazon in the Eastern District of Texas. Ravi helped prepare summary judgment briefing and post-trial briefs, prepare critical fact and expert witnesses for trial, argued motions in limine and jury instruction disputes, and prepared trial demonstratives.
- Amazon v. PersonalWeb (N.D. Cal.): Ravi represented Amazon and more than 80 of its customers in a multidistrict litigation against plaintiff PersonalWeb. Ravi was the primary drafter on briefs that resulted in two different summary judgment orders in Amazon’s favor, including one that resulted in a precedential Federal Circuit opinion relating to claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine. Ravi also deposed the plaintiff’s corporate representative and prepared briefing that led to an award of attorneys’ fees.
- LendingTree v. Zillow (W.D.N.C.): Ravi served on the trial team that successfully secured a defense verdict for defendants Zillow and Adchemy in the Western District of North Carolina against competitor LendingTree. After a five-week trial, the jury found that Zillow and Adchemy did not infringe the asserted patents and the patents were invalid. LendingTree appealed and Ravi helped prepare Zillow’s briefing in the appeal. The Federal Circuit not only affirmed the jury’s verdict of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted claims for improper inventorship, but in response to Zillow’s cross appeal, found the asserted claims to be patent-ineligible under Section 101.
- Affinity Labs of Texas v. Amazon, et al. (W.D. Tex.): Ravi represented Amazon and helped secure judgment of patent invalidity for failure to claim eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.§101. By winning judgment on the pleadings, Amazon was able to avoid costly discovery and an accelerated case schedule typical in that district. Ravi also took a leading role in preparing the responsive appeal brief, which led to the Federal Circuit affirming the district court’s judgment on the pleadings of Section 101 invalidity in a precedential opinion.
- In the Matter of Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-720: Ravi served on the trial team representing a Korean manufacturer of fingerprint detection devices in an investigation pending before the ITC. Ravi helped prepare extensive pre- and post-trial briefing and several rounds of briefing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 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 Federal Circuit sitting en banc.
- Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al
(W.D. Tex) (W.D. Tex.): Ravi served on a trial team that successfully invalidated five patents asserted by plaintiff, Broadband iTV, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In the order, Judge Albright found the plaintiff’s patents covered generic ideas and where thus invalid. The ruling put an end to BBiTV’s case in which it alleged that Amazon Prime Video, accessed via Fire TV, Fire tablets, and mobile apps, infringes five patents related to video-on-demand.
- Freshub, Inc. et al v. Amazon.com Inc. et al (W.D. Tex.): Ravi served on a trial team that successfully secured a defense verdict for Amazon in a patent dispute in the Western District of Texas against competitor Freshub, which was seeking $246 million in damages; a jury found that Amazon’s Alexa-powered smart home devices did not infringe patents held by Freshub.
- Innovation Sciences v. Amazon (E.D. Tex.): Ravi served on a trial team that successfully secured a defense verdict of non-infringement and invalidity, including a rare jury verdict relating to patent ineligibility, for defendant Amazon in the Eastern District of Texas. Ravi helped prepare summary judgment briefing and post-trial briefs, prepare critical fact and expert witnesses for trial, argued motions in limine and jury instruction disputes, and prepared trial demonstratives.
- Amazon v. PersonalWeb (N.D. Cal.): Ravi represented Amazon and more than 80 of its customers in a multidistrict litigation against plaintiff PersonalWeb. Ravi was the primary drafter on briefs that resulted in two different summary judgment orders in Amazon’s favor, including one that resulted in a precedential Federal Circuit opinion relating to claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine. Ravi also deposed the plaintiff’s corporate representative and prepared briefing that led to an award of attorneys’ fees.
- LendingTree v. Zillow (W.D.N.C.): Ravi served on the trial team that successfully secured a defense verdict for defendants Zillow and Adchemy in the Western District of North Carolina against competitor LendingTree. After a five-week trial, the jury found that Zillow and Adchemy did not infringe the asserted patents and the patents were invalid. LendingTree appealed and Ravi helped prepare Zillow’s briefing in the appeal. The Federal Circuit not only affirmed the jury’s verdict of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted claims for improper inventorship, but in response to Zillow’s cross appeal, found the asserted claims to be patent-ineligible under Section 101.
- Affinity Labs of Texas v. Amazon, et al. (W.D. Tex.): Ravi represented Amazon and helped secure judgment of patent invalidity for failure to claim eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.§101. By winning judgment on the pleadings, Amazon was able to avoid costly discovery and an accelerated case schedule typical in that district. Ravi also took a leading role in preparing the responsive appeal brief, which led to the Federal Circuit affirming the district court’s judgment on the pleadings of Section 101 invalidity in a precedential opinion.
- In the Matter of Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-720: Ravi served on the trial team representing a Korean manufacturer of fingerprint detection devices in an investigation pending before the ITC. Ravi helped prepare extensive pre- and post-trial briefing and several rounds of briefing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 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 Federal Circuit sitting en banc.
Recognition Recognition Recognition
Recognition Recognition Recognition
Recognition
Patexia
2023
- Recognized among the Top 10 Best Performing Patent Litigator (representing defendants).
- Named among the Top 20 Most Active Patent Litigators (representing defendants) in the U.S.
The Legal 500
2022
Highlighted among the nation's leading patent litigators with one client describing him as "excellent."
Super Lawyers
2019-2020
Northern California Super Lawyers named Ravi a Rising Star for intellectual property litigation.
IAM Patent 1000
2022
Recognized for patent litigation in California.
Recognition
Patexia
2023
- Recognized among the Top 10 Best Performing Patent Litigator (representing defendants).
- Named among the Top 20 Most Active Patent Litigators (representing defendants) in the U.S.
The Legal 500
2022
Highlighted among the nation's leading patent litigators with one client describing him as "excellent."
Super Lawyers
2019-2020
Northern California Super Lawyers named Ravi a Rising Star for intellectual property litigation.
IAM Patent 1000
2022
Recognized for patent litigation in California.