"Grant, a ramrod-straight former Navy SEAL with the instincts of a stage actor, questioned the most important witnesses, demolishing the credibility of Gore's story in a series of textbook-worthy cross-examinations."The American Lawyer 2009

Maximilian A. Grant

Washington, D.C.
  • 555 Eleventh Street, NW
  • Suite 1000
  • Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
  • USA
 
 

Max Grant serves as trial counsel in patent infringement cases and provides strategic business counseling on intellectual property issues. He led Latham & Watkins’ Intellectual Property Litigation Practice from 2009-14, a period during which the group recruited 16 lateral partners from six different firms, as well as over 60 technically trained associates and technical analysts, and won the Chambers USA Award for Excellence. Mr. Grant has tried over a dozen patent cases and is recognized as an experienced and innovative first chair trial lawyer.

  • "One client observes that 'he really impressed us and understood the bottom line, which is that the law is a tool for business.'" – Chambers USA
  • “Tough, tenacious [and] recommended" in the ITC; is an "experienced first-chair litigator" with "an excellent track record in life science cases." – The Legal 500 US
  • Recognized three times in four years with Innovative Lawyers Awards for work for C.R. Bard (2010), Cross Match Technologies (2012), and in building Latham’s IP group (2013) – Financial Times
  • "Grant [is] a lawyer who is 'cut from the finest cloth'. The global IP litigation co-chair, he is an 'outstanding leader' with exceptional organizational skills. His trial skills are widely admired: 'His presentation is pristine and he has a background that sits well with the courtroom.'" - IAM Patent 1000
  • “Top Washington IP Lawyer” – Washington Business Journal

Mr. Grant served as lead counsel in a significant victory for client C.R. Bard. In late 2007, after a six-week trial in the US District Court of Arizona, the jury found that W.L. Gore & Associates willfully infringed Bard’s patent, upheld the patent’s validity and awarded US$185 million in past damages. In 2009, the trial court enhanced the damages award and awarded attorney fees and prejudgment interest. In 2010, the court awarded supplemental damages and initial compulsory license fees. The total award was more than US$1.1 billion and the win was featured in a cover article in the November 2009 issue of The American Lawyer.

Mr. Grant joined Latham in 2002, after serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. In 2005, he was appointed by the Secretary of Commerce to the Patent Public Advisory Committee, a nine-member board that advises the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office on patent policy, and served a three-year term. Before attending law school, Mr. Grant served as an aide to Senator John McCain and as a Navy SEAL team leader. He is the co-inventor of two US patents.

Mr. Grant is admitted to practice before the Federal Courts of Appeals for the Federal, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, the Supreme Court, and numerous Federal District Courts (including the Eastern District of Texas). He also practices before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and represents pro bono clients before the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. He is a member of the George Washington University Law School IP Advisory Board, the Federal Circuit Bar Association, the New York Intellectual Property Law Association, the Eastern District of Texas Bar Association and the ITC Trial Lawyers Association.

Mr. Grant's representative active matters include:

Monsanto v. DuPont & Pioneer Hi-Bred (D. Missouri): Lead trial counsel in 14-patent offensive case relating to automated genetic sampling methods for seeds, called "seed chipping." Trial date not set.

Delphix v. Actifio (N.D. Cal.): Lead counsel for defendant in 5-patent case relating to virtual storage and infrastructure for complex database systems. Trial date not set.

InterDigital v. Samsung, Nokia, Huawei & ZTE (ITC; D. Del.): Lead trial counsel representing patent holder asserting 6 patents relating to 3G and LTE wireless devices against four major wireless device manufacturers. ITC trial set for February 2014 and District of Delaware trials set for September, October and Nov. 2014.

Medivation v. Univ. Calif. Regents & Jung (Calif.): Lead trial counsel representing biotech patent holder in 4-week state court trial regarding licensing rights to novel, small-molecule drugs used to treat prostate cancer arising from sponsored research agreement. Disputed compound acquired by J&J for $1 billion in September 2013. Jury returned verdict in favor of Medivation in November 2013. All issues on appeal.

J-Channel v. JELD-WEN (E.D. Tenn.): Lead counsel for major window manufacturer in case brought by NPE. Trial date not set; motion to transfer venue pending.
RPost v. Constant Contact (E.D. Tex.): Lead counsel for national email marketing company in case brought by NPE. Trial date not set; motion to dismiss for lack of standing pending.

Create Ads v. Endurance Int’l Gp. & Contstant Contact (D. Del.): Lead counsel for companies sued by NPE. Trial date not set; motion to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter purusant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 pending.

Katz Licensing v. GEICO (D. Del.): Co-lead counsel for defendant in 5-patent defensive case relating to call waiting systems. Trial set date not set.

Bonutti Skeletal Innov. v. Conmed (M.D. Fla.): Co-lead counsel for defendant in 5-patent case relating to suture anchors and related instruments. Trial date not set.

Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One (E.D. Va.): Co-lead counsel for defendant in 5-patent case relating to various electronic payment technologies. Trial date not set.

Mr. Grant's prior representations include:

InterDigital v. Nokia, Huawei & ZTE (ITC): Lead trial counsel representing patent holder asserting seven patents relating to 3G wireless devices, including WCDMA and CDMA2000 capable mobile phones, against three major wireless device manufacturers. Trial conducted Febrarury 2013; awaiting final determination.

Cross Match Technologies v. Suprema & Mentalix (ITC & E.D. Tex.): Lead trial counsel representing patent holder in infringement case against competitor involving patents relating to proprietary biometric identification technologies (fingerprint scanners). ITC trial conducted March 2011, and Commission final determination issued exclusion order barring accused products from importation into the United States. Lead counsel on pending appeal.

CR Bard v. W.L. Gore (D. Ariz.; Fed. Cir.; S. Ct.): Lead trial counsel representing patent holder in six week jury trial involving prosthetic vascular grafts made of expanded teflon. Trial conducted in 2007. Jury verdict of willful infringement and US$185 million in past damages. On post-trial motions, damages doubled to US$371 million, awarded US$19 million in fees, US$20.4 million in prejudgment interest. After supplemental damages and fees, the total award is over US$1.1 billion. The trial was featured in November 2009 issue of The American Lawyer.

Wavetronix v. Electronic Integrated Systems (D. Utah): Lead trial counsel for defendant in patent infringement case involving radar technology for traffic monitoring. Verdict of non-infringement after 14 days of bench trial proceedings. Affirmed on appeal.

DuPont v. Heraeus Materials Tech. (D. Del.; D. Or.): Lead trial counsel for defendant in multi-jurisdictional case relating to silver paste technology used in solar panel manufacturing. Allegedly infringing product responsible for US$600 million in annual revenue. Case favorably settled.

Pioneer Hi-Bred (DuPont) v. Monsanto (D. Iowa): Lead trial counsel for defendant in case relating to genetic seed vigor enhancement. Case favorable settled for no value after motion to dismiss pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 argued.

Schlumberger v. Baker Hughes (AAA Arb.): Lead trial counsel asserting four patents related to optical analysis of hydrocarbons in formation reservoirs. Retained eight weeks before trial set. Case favorably settled on eve of trial.

Mayo Labs v. Prometheus Labs (Fed. Cir.; S. Ct.): Represented appellant patentee in landmark Supreme Court case regarding patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Case lost in Supreme Court.