Bert Reiser is a partner in Latham & Watkins' Washington, D.C. office, where he is a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property Practice and International Trade Commission (ITC) Patent Litigation Practice. Mr. Reiser is also a former member of the firm's Training and Career Enhancement Committee.
Prior to joining Latham, he was head of a multinational law firm’s Section 337 practice where he was primarily involved in international intellectual property disputes before the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. In Section 337 investigations, Mr. Reiser has represented both American and foreign companies as complainants and respondents in more than 50 ITC investigations, including more than15 ITC trials. He has also successfully represented clients in ITC enforcement actions and proceedings before US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to clear redesigns for importation. Previously, Mr. Reiser was the attorney advisor to Judge Paul J. Luckern of the ITC, where he assisted in the adjudication of more than 20 disputes under Section 337.
Mr. Reiser has extensive experience in district court patent litigation throughout the United States and is repeatedly recognized by Chambers Global, Chambers USA, The Legal 500 US, and IAM Patent 1000 as a leading attorney for Section 337 litigation before the ITC.
Watch this video to learn more about
the ITC Patent Litigation Practice
Mr. Reiser's representative experience includes:
- In the Matter of Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same II (ITC): Representing Honda in multi-patent case refiled by Intellectual Ventures after the ALJ terminated the original investigation for lack of standing. Trial date not set.
- In re Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof,and Vehicles Containing Same. Represents Arista Networks, Inc., a software-driven cloud networking company, in an enforcement proceeding before the ITC where he won an initial determination of no violation of the Commission’s remedial orders, and a proceeding before CBP, where he twice won CBP determinations of non-infringement for Arista’s redesigns.
- Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets. Represented Qualcomm in patent infringement case regarding cellular service and device industry. Obtained reversal on appeal of ITC remedy order, overturning significant and longstanding Commission precedent in the area of downstream exclusion remedy.
- Certain Wireless Communication Chips and Chipsets, and Products Containing Same, Including Wireless Handsets and Network Interface Cards. Successfully represented Qualcomm in patent infringement suit regarding cellular service and device industry. Obtained early termination of the investigation without trial.
- Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp. Successfully represented Applied in a patent infringement case in the Central District of California against US Surgical in connection with Applied’s patents on surgical trocars. Secured summary judgment of liability for Applied against US Surgical without trial, demonstrating that Applied’s patent was valid and infringed. US Surgical’s liability was affirmed upon appeal by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.*
- Certain Data Storage Systems and Components Thereof. Successfully represented complainant EMC Corporation in a complex patent infringement-based investigation under Section 337 against Hitachi. The investigation involved six software patents and more than 80 claims.*
- Certain Flooring Products. Successfully defended respondents Unilin Décor N.V., BHK of America, Inc. and Meister-Leisten Schulte GmbH against patent infringement allegations. Following a full evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that none of the respondents infringed the asserted patents. This determination was upheld upon review by the full Commission and upon appeal by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.*
- Certain Integrated Circuit Chipsets, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same. Successfully represented Intel Corporation in complex patent infringement-based investigation under Section 337 against VIA Technologies, Inc. The investigation settled prior to the hearing.*
- Certain Memory Devices with Increased Capacitance and Products Containing Same. Successfully defended Samsung Electronics Corp. against allegations of patent infringement in an investigation under Section 337. Mr. Reiser secured summary determination of invalidity of the patent claims asserted against Samsung prior to the hearing, as well as termination of the investigation as to Samsung. These determinations were upheld upon review by the Commission, and upon appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.*
- Certain Plastic Molding Machines with Control Systems Having Programmable Operator Interfaces Incorporating General Purpose Computers, and Components Thereof II. Successfully represented complainant Milicron Inc. in patent infringement-based investigation under Section 337 against several respondents. Each of the respondents settled with Milicron prior to the hearing.*
- Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof. Successfully represented a complainant Kenetech Windpower, Inc. in patent infringement-based investigation under Section 337 against several respondents. Following a full evidentiary hearing, the ALJ determined that Kenetech proved a violation of Section 337. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding of violation and issued an exclusion order, which determinations were affirmed upon appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.*
- Semiconductor Energy Laboratories Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Corp. Successfully defended Samsung against allegations of patent infringement by Semiconductor Energy Laboratories (SEL) in connection with patents directed to thin film transistors. Samsung won a judgment of unenforceability by reason of inequitable conduct in the procurement of the asserted SEL patents following a full evidentiary hearing. The judgment in Samsung’s favor was affirmed upon appeal by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.*
*Matter handled prior to joining Latham & Watkins