Leeron
G.
Kalay
- Title
- Principal
- Offices
- Silicon Valley
- Phone Numbers
-
- Email
-
[email protected]
Overview
Leeron Kalay, the office hiring principal for Fish's Silicon Valley office, is a trial lawyer and problem solver, specializing in complex, competitor cases. Throughout his career, he has tried many cases both before the U.S. International Trade Commission and in U.S. district courts across the country.
He has successfully litigated patent and trade secret disputes spanning a wide range of technologies, including semiconductors, medical devices, battery cells, DNA sequencing, solar power, and wireless communications.
Leeron has extensive experience guiding clients through pre-suit investigations, the fast-paced discovery of Section 337 investigations, trial, appeals, and enforcement. In addition to managing multiple trial teams, Leeron’s courtroom work includes witness examinations at trial and oral arguments. His pre-trial work includes crafting and executing strategy for various case-dispositive issues, including damages.
Leeron is active as a writer and lecturer on issues relevant to the intellectual property bar. Most recently, he was a co-author of the Federal Judicial Center’s Patent Mediation Guide.
Experience
U.S. International Trade Commission, Section 337 investigations
Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products and Related Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1131 – Represented third parties in third party discovery disputes.
Certain Batteries and Electrochemical Devices Containing Composite Separators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1087 – Represented Complainant LG Chem in an Investigation regarding patents related to lithium-ion battery technology.
Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1046 – Represented Complainant Macronix in an Investigation regarding patents related to NAND flash and NOR flash technology.
Certain Graphic Systems, Components Thereof, And Consumer Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1044 – Represented Respondent LG Electronics in an Investigation regarding patents related to graphics processor technology as well as televisions and media devices containing the same.
Certain Graphics Processors, DDR Memory Controllers, And Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1037 – Represented Respondent LG Electronics in an Investigation regarding patents related to graphics processors, DDR memory controllers and media devices containing the same.
Certain Network Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-944 / 995 – Represented respondent in an Investigation regarding patents relating to network switching devices.
Certain Nanopores and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-991 – Represented Complainants Illumina, the University of Washington, and the University of Alabama, Birmingham in an Investigation brought against certain DNA sequencing companies.
Certain Devices Containing Non-Volatile Memory And Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-922 – Represented Complainant Macronix in an Investigation regarding patents relating to non-volatile memory.
Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-916 – Represented respondents in an Investigation regarding patents relating to non-volatile memory.
Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-808 – Represented respondents in an Investigation relating to various computer products and mobile devices.
Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-753 – Represented respondents in an Investigation relating to controllers for various generations of SDRAMs, DDR SDRAMs, GDDR SDRAMs, mDDR SDRAMs, and LPDDR SDRAMs.
Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-661 – Represented respondents in an Investigation relating to memory devices and their associated memory controllers.
Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-619 – Represented respondents in an Investigation relating to flash memory and controllers.
U.S. District Court cases
NEXTracker v. Sunlink Corp. (D. Del.) – Represented NEXTracker in a patent infringement case involving tracker technology.
ATI v. Colin Mitchel, NEXTracker, et al. (D.N.M.) – Representing NEXTracker and Flex in a trade secret case involving solar tracker technology.
Macronix International Co., Ltd. v. Toshiba Corporation et al. (S.D. Cal.) – Represented Macronix in parallel district court proceeding related to NAND flash and NOR flash technology.
B.E. Technology v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Tenn., PTAB) – Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement case directed at Microsoft digital stores. All asserted claim found unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Safe Storage, LLC v. VMware, Inc. (D. Dell) – Represented VMware in a patent infringement case
Parallel Iron v. VMware, Inc. (D. Del., PTAB) – Represented VMware in a patent infringement case
BorgWarner, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. (W.D.N.C.) – Represented BorgWarner in assertion of patents in case relating to the design and manufacture of turbocharger components. Case resulted in settlement for $32.5 million to client.
SanDisk v. Kingston et al. (W.D Wis.) – Represented Kingston in patent and antitrust litigation involving flash memory products. Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Kingston.
MasterObjects, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (N.D. Cal.) – Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement case concerning search engine technology.
SanDisk v. Phison et al. (W.D. Wis.) – Representing Kingston in patent infringement case involving flash memory products. District judge found summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Kingston. (case currently pending appeal before the Federal Circuit)
PageMelding, Inc. v. Feeva Tech. et al. (N.D. Cal.) – Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement case concerning customized content on web properties. Obtained favorable claim construction for client, resulting in settlement of case shortly thereafter.
Thaicom Public Company Limited v. Qualcore Logic (Analog), Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Obtained judgment for breach of contract, and pursued seizure of assets in support of judgment on behalf of client Thaicom.
Rambus, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (D. Del. & N.D. Cal.) – Represented Micron in a series of patent infringement, equitable estoppel, and antitrust matters involving SDRAM controller patents. Dist. of Delaware held 12 Rambus patents to be unenforceable due to spoliation and unclean hands. Spoliation finding was affirmed by Federal Circuit. (Cases handled prior to joining Fish & Richardson)
Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp. (D.N.H; Fed. Cir.) – Represented Oracle in patent infringement case concerning internet and database technology. Court granted summary judgment of noninfringement by Oracle; ruling upheld by Federal Circuit. (Case handled prior to joining Fish & Richardson)
U.S. International Trade Commission, Section 337 investigations
Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products and Related Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1131 – Represented third parties in third party discovery disputes.
Certain Batteries and Electrochemical Devices Containing Composite Separators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1087 – Represented Complainant LG Chem in an Investigation regarding patents related to lithium-ion battery technology.
Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1046 – Represented Complainant Macronix in an Investigation regarding patents related to NAND flash and NOR flash technology.
Certain Graphic Systems, Components Thereof, And Consumer Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1044 – Represented Respondent LG Electronics in an Investigation regarding patents related to graphics processor technology as well as televisions and media devices containing the same.
Certain Graphics Processors, DDR Memory Controllers, And Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1037 – Represented Respondent LG Electronics in an Investigation regarding patents related to graphics processors, DDR memory controllers and media devices containing the same.
Certain Network Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-944 / 995 – Represented respondent in an Investigation regarding patents relating to network switching devices.
Certain Nanopores and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-991 – Represented Complainants Illumina, the University of Washington, and the University of Alabama, Birmingham in an Investigation brought against certain DNA sequencing companies.
Certain Devices Containing Non-Volatile Memory And Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-922 – Represented Complainant Macronix in an Investigation regarding patents relating to non-volatile memory.
Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-916 – Represented respondents in an Investigation regarding patents relating to non-volatile memory.
Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-808 – Represented respondents in an Investigation relating to various computer products and mobile devices.
Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-753 – Represented respondents in an Investigation relating to controllers for various generations of SDRAMs, DDR SDRAMs, GDDR SDRAMs, mDDR SDRAMs, and LPDDR SDRAMs.
Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-661 – Represented respondents in an Investigation relating to memory devices and their associated memory controllers.
Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-619 – Represented respondents in an Investigation relating to flash memory and controllers.
U.S. District Court cases
NEXTracker v. Sunlink Corp. (D. Del.) – Represented NEXTracker in a patent infringement case involving tracker technology.
ATI v. Colin Mitchel, NEXTracker, et al. (D.N.M.) – Representing NEXTracker and Flex in a trade secret case involving solar tracker technology.
Macronix International Co., Ltd. v. Toshiba Corporation et al. (S.D. Cal.) – Represented Macronix in parallel district court proceeding related to NAND flash and NOR flash technology.
B.E. Technology v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Tenn., PTAB) – Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement case directed at Microsoft digital stores. All asserted claim found unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Safe Storage, LLC v. VMware, Inc. (D. Dell) – Represented VMware in a patent infringement case
Parallel Iron v. VMware, Inc. (D. Del., PTAB) – Represented VMware in a patent infringement case
BorgWarner, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. (W.D.N.C.) – Represented BorgWarner in assertion of patents in case relating to the design and manufacture of turbocharger components. Case resulted in settlement for $32.5 million to client.
SanDisk v. Kingston et al. (W.D Wis.) – Represented Kingston in patent and antitrust litigation involving flash memory products. Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Kingston.
MasterObjects, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (N.D. Cal.) – Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement case concerning search engine technology.
SanDisk v. Phison et al. (W.D. Wis.) – Representing Kingston in patent infringement case involving flash memory products. District judge found summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Kingston. (case currently pending appeal before the Federal Circuit)
PageMelding, Inc. v. Feeva Tech. et al. (N.D. Cal.) – Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement case concerning customized content on web properties. Obtained favorable claim construction for client, resulting in settlement of case shortly thereafter.
Thaicom Public Company Limited v. Qualcore Logic (Analog), Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Obtained judgment for breach of contract, and pursued seizure of assets in support of judgment on behalf of client Thaicom.
Rambus, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (D. Del. & N.D. Cal.) – Represented Micron in a series of patent infringement, equitable estoppel, and antitrust matters involving SDRAM controller patents. Dist. of Delaware held 12 Rambus patents to be unenforceable due to spoliation and unclean hands. Spoliation finding was affirmed by Federal Circuit. (Cases handled prior to joining Fish & Richardson)
Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp. (D.N.H; Fed. Cir.) – Represented Oracle in patent infringement case concerning internet and database technology. Court granted summary judgment of noninfringement by Oracle; ruling upheld by Federal Circuit. (Case handled prior to joining Fish & Richardson)
Best Lawyers in America
Best Lawyers 2023-2025
Northern California Rising Star
Super Lawyers 2010-2014
Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services
State Bar of California 2013