Saina Shamilov’s national practice focuses on patent and other intellectual property litigation and counseling. She has experience with all aspects of litigation including summary judgment, trial and appeal. She has successfully represented clients in various jurisdictions around the country including Northern District of California, Central District of California, District of Delaware, and Eastern District of Texas. She has also represented clients in Section 337 investigations instituted by the U.S. International Trade Commission and represented petitioners and patent owners in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Saina has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Northern California Super Lawyers. In 2015, Saina was honored by the Silicon Valley Business Journal as one of Silicon Valley’s most influential women. Saina was also recognized as an Outstanding Volunteer by the Bar Association of San Francisco's Justice & Diversity Center in 2016 for her pro bono work.
Prior to attending law school, Saina was a software engineer. Her technical background allows her to effectively understand her clients’ technologies and translate difficult technical issues into arguments that are understandable and compelling to the judge or jury. She has developed a record of establishing early defense strategies that drive early settlements or dismissals with non-practicing entities. Saina has successfully represented clients in various technological fields including networking and telecommunications, e-commerce and Internet-related technologies, software engineering, computer architecture, CRM systems and database management.
In 2014, Saina was a second-chair trial counsel for Zillow and Adchemy winning a defense verdict in the Western District of North Carolina against competitor LendingTree. After a five weeks trial, the jury found that Zillow and Adchemy did not infringe the asserted patents and the patents were invalid.
Saina was a trial counsel for Amazon.com winning a defense jury verdict in Delaware in Cordance v. Amazon.com in which two of the three asserted patents were found not infringed and the third invalid.