close

Virginia K. DeMarchi

Partner, Litigation  

Mountain View 650.335.7967

Overview

Virginia DeMarchi represents technology and life sciences companies in patent litigation and in litigation involving other forms of intellectual property. Her clients include companies in a wide range of industries, including e-commerce, computer hardware and software, industrial enzymes, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, financial services, communications and consumer products. Virginia also represents clients before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes review proceedings.

Virginia has tried cases in federal district courts around the country, and has argued appeals before the Federal Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. She has been consistently recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyer since 2011.

Before joining Fenwick & West, Virginia worked as a trial attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Prior to this, she served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Significant Matters

Patent Matters

  • U.S. Water Services v. Novozymes. Virginia successfully defended Novozymes in a patent infringement action involving a method for reducing formation of deposits in ethanol processing equipment.
  • Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly and Co. Virginia currently represents LA BioMed in several proceedings involving LA BioMed’s patent on a method of using PDE-5 inhibitors to treat fibrosis.
  • Novozymes v. Danisco. Ms. DeMarchi represented Novozymes at trial and on appeal in an action against rival Danisco for infringement of Novozymes’ patent for an improved alpha-amylase useful for fuel ethanol production, among other industrial applications.
  • Parallel Networks v. FriendFinder Networks. Ms. DeMarchi defended FriendFinder in a patent infringement case brought by a non-practicing entity in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. She helped FriendFinder obtain a defense damages verdict of less than $1.3 million in the face of the plaintiff’s demand of $62 million. The patents-in-suit concerned web page delivery.
  • Quito v. Netflix, Inc. et al.  Ms. DeMarchi defended Netflix in a patent infringement action brought by a non-practicing entity in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  She successfully argued on behalf of the joint defense group in the case for a staged approach to the litigation, in which the court considered a joint motion for summary judgment of invalidity before permitting other proceedings in the case.  The case was successfully resolved on Netflix’s behalf after briefing on the motion.  The case concerned a patent directed to personalized content delivery based on user feedback.

Other Intellectual Property Matters

  • National Products v. Gamber-Johnson. Ms. DeMarchi represented National Products at trial challenging rival Gamber-Johnson’s false advertising. The jury found Gamber-Johnson had deliberately violated the Lanham Act and awarded National Products substantial damages.
  • Joby v. Tocad America. Ms. DeMarchi represented Joby in a trade dress infringement action to protect its unique product design. Joby's motion for a preliminary injunction was resolved by stipulation and the matter settled thereafter.

Recent Publications/Presentations

  • At the Supreme Court, Fenwick & West Patent Law Year in Review (January 2015).
  • Panelist. Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Practicing Law Institute (October 2012).
  • Continuing Issues with Claim Construction, Fenwick & West Patent Law Year in Review (January 2012).
  • A Look Ahead: Patent Cases Before the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit in 2011, Fenwick & West Patent Law Year in Review (January 2011).
  • Navigating Contractual Indemnity Obligations for Claims of Patent Infringement, ABA IP Litigation Newsletter (January 2010).
  • Selected Legal Issues for Cloud Computing, CTUAA Annual Conference (December 2009).
  • Injunctions After eBay v. MercExchange, abridged version published in Daily Journal "Focus" column (July 27, 2007).