Giri Pathmanaban focuses on intellectual property litigation and represents clients in actions pending before federal district courts across the US and the International Trade Commission.
Mr. Pathmanaban received his BE in Computer Science and Engineering from PSG College of Technology, India, his MS in Information Sciences from the University of Michigan, and his JD from Columbia Law School, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and a member of the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review.
Mr. Pathmanaban’s experience extends to all aspects of litigation and trial in patent and trade secret cases (in district courts, ITC, and arbitration proceedings), including:
Development and implementation of case strategy
Direct and cross-examination of witnesses at trial and deposition
Successfully arguing dispositive motions and claim construction hearings
Successfully arguing several hearings at the PTAB in Patent Office proceedings, Mr. Pathmanaban has argued final trial hearings that led to invalidation of the challenged patents.
These cases, proceedings, and appeals have involved a variety of industries and technologies relating to, medical devices, computer networking, backup storage technology, semiconductors, lighting control technology, the Internet and data security.
Mr. Pathmanaban is admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Mr. Pathmanaban's experience includes:
Representing Overhead Door in multi-patent competitor cases against Chamberlain Group, Inc.
Representing Imberatek in multi- patent suit against Samsung
Represented Monsanto in multi- patent competitor cases against DuPont involved corn seed breeding technology
Represented Abbott Labs in multiple cases relating to medical devices
Represented Amazon.com in dispute related to automated pricing technology
Represented a bank ATM maker against a competitor in the ITC
Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) (D. Mass): Represented Actifio in a massive trade secret and nine-patent case involving two jurisdictions. Case settled favorably after Delphix’s patents were invalidated in IPR proceedings
Representative Prior Matters
Monsanto Company v. DuPont Pioneer (MOED): Represented Monsanto Company, a global provider of agricultural products for farmers, in a sixteen-patent case relating to Monsanto’s seed development technology that enables the convergence of plant breeding and biotechnology. Case settled on favorable terms to Monsanto
Pioneer DuPont v. Monsanto Co. (IASD): Represented Monsanto in patent infringement case relating to corn seed manufacturing technology. Case settled on highly favorable terms to Monsanto
Chamberlain v. Overhead Door (E.D. Tex): Day to day partner on a 4-patent case brought by Chamberlain, which ended in a jury verdict for our client, Overhead Door. Day to day partner on running the case
Overhead Door v. Chamberlain (ITC): Was day to day partner on a 5-patent ITC case related to garage door openers against Chamberlain; ITC found 3 patents valid and infringed
FlexStent v. Abbott (C.D. Cal.) (Fed. Cir.) Defended Abbott in a patent infringement lawsuit in the Central District of California. Flexstent alleged that Abbott’s Xience stents, the best-selling drug-eluting stents on the market, infringes its patent. Abbott filed an inter partes review petition with the patent office seeking to invalidate the patent, and got the PTAB to agree. FlexStent appealed but the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance—a total victory
Edwards v. Abbott (C.D. Cal.) Defended Abbott in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by competitor, Edwards Lifesciences, in the US District Court for the Central District of California. Edwards alleged that Abbott’s MitraClip, the only FDA-approved transcatheter-based mitral repair device on the market, infringes three patents. MitraClip is one of Abbott’s flagship products, with sales exceeding over US$400 million a year. Abbott filed two IPRs, and in response, Edwards dropped all challenged claims, handing a huge victory to Abbott. Case settled on highly favorable terms
Integrated Sensing Systems, Inc. v. Abbott (E.D. Mich) Defended Abbott in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by competitor relating to wireless heart monitoring device, called CardioMEMs. ISS alleged that CardioMEMs was a rip-off; successfully filed IPRs and forced ISS to dismiss its case voluntarily
United Video Properties, Inc. v. Amazon.com (Fed. Cir.): Drafted brief and helped prepare for oral argument for Amazon, and helped secure affirmance of non- infringement by Federal Circuit
OIP Technologies v. Amazon.com, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Secured dismissal of a patent case against Amazon.com related to automated pricing for goods sold online. The court granted Latham's motion to dismiss all 62 patent claims for failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal
Speaker, “What Phillips Wrought: Trends in Claim Construction Law and Procedure, “ Advanced Patent Litigation Seminar, State Bar of Texas, March 23, 2012
“PTAB Update: New Motion to Amend Procedures Proposed,” Latham & Watkins Client Alert, October 30, 2018
“En Banc Federal Circuit Overturns PTAB’s IPR Time-Bar Ruling,” Latham & Watkins Client Alert, August 23, 2018
“Patent Owner Statements During IPR May Limit Claim Scope,” Latham & Watkins Client Alert, June 6, 2017
“PTO Issues New Final Rules for PTAB Proceedings,” Latham & Watkins Client Alert, March 31, 2016
“The PTAB’s Proposed Rule Changes,” Latham & Watkins Client Alert, August 26, 2015
“Knowledge Is Power: Requiring 'Knowledge Of The Patent,'” Law 360, September 22, 2011
US Patent and Trademark Office
JD, Columbia University School of Law, 2007 Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, 2005-2006
MS in Information Sciences, University of Michigan, 2002
BE in Computer Science, PSG College of Technology, 2000
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.