Overview

Linhong Zhang is an intellectual property litigator who focuses his practice on developing and executing litigation strategies in complex, high-stakes, and multi-jurisdictional IP disputes in U.S. District Courts, the Federal Circuit, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

He has practiced extensively in the ITC, representing both complainants and respondents in numerous technically complex matters, and is routinely sought out for his insights into ITC law and practice. Linhong is also regularly consulted on settlement and licensing matters. His practice also encompasses post-grant proceedings at the PTAB, particularly where post-grant matters must be coordinated with co-pending litigation. Linhong's clients consist mainly of high-technology companies in the United States, Taiwan, Korea, and China.

With a background in computer science and finance, Linhong is attuned to both the technical and business sides of clients' operations, and he uses this unique insight to craft pragmatic litigation strategies that will help them achieve their long-term goals. He works collaboratively with clients by getting to know their technology and business, developing creative and effective legal solutions, and handling their matters with efficiency and skill. He is frequently the main point of contact for clients' executive management and takes an active role collaborating with them on strategy and briefing them on the status of their cases.

Linhong has extensive experience in a broad range of technologies, including 2G, 3G, and 4G mobile standards, electric vehicle batteries, solar cells, computer power management, flash memory, volatile memory, online sales systems, web browsers and applications, Internet billing methods, advertising display systems, video compression, graphical user interfaces, network monitoring, and software customization.

Before practicing law, Linhong was a programmer analyst at the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, where he developed an enterprise application software for loan origination, servicing, and pooling. His software development experience includes programming in C, C++, Java, JavaScript, Perl, and SQL. He also has experience working with TCP/IP, UDP, J2EE, and relational databases.

Experience

ITC proceedings

Certain Photovoltaic Cells and Products Containing Same – 337-TA-1151 – Represented respondent JinkoSolar, one of the largest and most innovative solar module manufacturers in the world, in high-stakes patent infringement action involving photovoltaic cells. Competitor Hanwha had sought a limited exclusion order at ITC to bar importation of JinkoSolar’s solar modules into the U.S. Obtained summary determination of no infringement. Federal Circuit affirmed the noninfringement finding on appeal.

Certain Foodservice Equipment and Components Thereof – 337-TA-1166 – Represented respondent Guangzhou Rebenet in case involving trade secrets misappropriation, as well as tortious interference with contractual relationships. Complainants sought a limited exclusion order at ITC to bar importation of client’s products into the United States. Obtained summary determination that complainants failed to prove substantial injury to domestic industry. Commission voted to affirm and terminated investigation.

Certain Digital Video-Capable Devices and Components Thereof; No. 337-TA-1224 – Led technical merits and directed expert witness in representation of respondents MediaTek and Hewlett Packard in patent infringement action involving digital copy protection technology. Case pending.

Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular Communication Modules and Products Containing the Same – 337-TA-1240 – Representing respondent Quectel in a patent infringement action involving patents alleged to be essential to LTE and UMTS. Case pending.

Certain Vacuum Insulated Flasks and Components Thereof – 337-TA-1216 – Represented respondent Everich in a trademark infringement action. Everich was dismissed after the complainant cancelled the trademark at issue.

Certain Lithium-ion Battery Cells, Battery Modules, Battery Packs, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same – 337-TA-1181 – Represented complainants LG Chem and Toray Industries in patent infringement case. Settled favorably.

Certain Foodservice Equipment and Components Thereof – 337-TA-1166 – Representing respondent Guangzhou Rebenet in a trade secrets misappropriation case. Obtained initial determination of no violation. Commission review pending.

Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked electronics Components, and Products Containing Same – 337-TA-1097 – Represented respondent SK Hynix in a patent infringement action involving SSD disk drives and stacked volatile memories. Obtained summary determination of no technical domestic industry. Settled favorably.

Certain Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof Such as Spare Parts – 337-TA-1057 – Represented complainant iRobot in a patent infringement investigation relating to autonomous behavior and embedded systems. Obtained violation at the initial determination.

Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing The Same – 337-TA-1047 – Represented respondents MediaTek and MStar in a patent infringement action involving video processing technology. Settled favorably.

Certain Graphics Processors, DDR Memory Controllers, and Products Containing the Same – 337-TA-1037 – Represented respondent MediaTek in a patent infringement action involving graphics processing and memory technologies. Settled favorably.

Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof – 337-TA-1016 – Represented complainant The Chamberlain Group, Inc. in a patent infringement action involving garage door opener systems. Obtained violation at the final determination.

Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same – 337-TA-972 – Represented respondent Nautilus Hyosung against Diebold in patent litigation concerning technology associated with ATMs. Obtained summary determination of noninfringement as to certain products and summary determination of invalidity as to certain claims.

Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof I – 337-TA-944 – Represented respondent Arista Networks in patent infringement case involving networking technologies. Settled favorably.

Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same – 337-TA-916 – Represented respondents Macronix and Macronix’s customers in a patent infringement action relating to non-volatile memory technology. Settled favorably.

Certain Electronic Devices, Including Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Tablet Computers, Media Players, and Televisions, and Components Thereof – 337-TA-862 – Represented respondent Samsung against patent infringement claims brought by Ericsson involving patents declared essential to the 2G, 3G and 4G LTE mobile standards. Settled favorably.

District Court cases

DivX, LLC v. MediaTek Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Representing MediaTek in a case involving breach of contract, trade secrets misappropriation, trademark infringement, and RICO claims.

Oyster Optics, LLC v. Infinera Corporation (E.D. Tex.) – Obtained case-dispositive summary judgment on behalf of Infinera.

Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented Wonderland in a patent infringement action involving baby products. Settled favorably.

Immersion Corporation v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Samsung in a patent litigation action involving haptic feedback. Settled favorably.

Personalized Media Communications, LLC, v. TCL Corp. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented TCL in a patent infringement action involving video and audio decoding technologies. Settled favorably.

SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Samsung in a patent infringement action involving power management for mobile devices. Settled favorably.

Sharp Corporation v. Hisense Electric, Co. Ltd. et al. (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Hisense in a patent litigation action involving digital televisions. Settled favorably.

Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Huawei in a patent infringement action involving telephony and VoIP technologies. Settled favorably.

Cambrian Science Corp. v. Cox Communications, Inc. et al. (C.D. Cal.) – Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of defendants in a patent infringement action relating to optical networking technology. Also obtained a finding of exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award of attorneys’ fees.

Monec Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. et al. (D. Del.) – Defended Samsung in a patent infringement litigation relating to mobile communication devices. Settled favorably.

Walker Digital, LLC v. Expedia, Inc. (D. Del.) – Represented Expedia in multiple patent infringement actions related to online sales systems. Obtained dismissal for lack of standing.

Eolas Technologies LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Adobe in a patent trial relating to web browser and application technology. The case was tried to a jury verdict in February 2011 and the jury found Eolas’ patents invalid.

Microsoft Corp. v. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. (D. Del.) – Represented Microsoft in multi-patent declaratory judgment case involving power management technology. Favorable settlement following significant summary judgment wins.

SFA Systems, LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Barnes & Noble and J&R Electronics in patent litigation involving electronic sales systems. Settled favorably.

Netcraft v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al. (D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff Netcraft in patent litigation involving Internet billing methods. Settled favorably.

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Office Media Network, Inc. (D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff Gannett on patents related to advertising display systems. Settled favorably after Markman victory.

Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. Cal.) – Represented Microsoft in a patent trial relating to video compression, graphical user interfaces, network monitoring, software customization, and other technologies. The case was tried to a jury verdict in June 2008 and the jury found no infringement of MPT’s patent.

Post-Grant proceedings

SK Hynix, Inc. v. BiTMICRO, LLC, IPR2018-01720, IPR2018-01545, IPR2018-01410, IPR2018-01411 – Represented petitioner. Favorable settlement after institution.

LG Chem, Ltd. et al v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd., IPR2020-00657 – Represented petitioner. Favorable settlement after institution.

JinkoSolar Holding Co. Ltd. v. Hanwha Q CELLS & Advanced Materials Corporation, IPR2019-01145 – Represented petitioner. Favorable final written decision.

Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold, Inc., CBM2016-00034 – Represented petitioner. Favorable final written decision.

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00978, IPR2016-00308 – Represented petitioner. Favorable final written decisions.