“Lumish doesn’t just litigate cases, he tries them. He is an incredibly articulate, A+ lawyer who you would want in your corner any day of the week. Outside of trial, he makes an effective business counselor and a great strategic sounding board.”


Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000 2014

Douglas E. Lumish

Silicon Valley | San Francisco
  • 140 Scott Drive
  • Menlo Park, CA 94025
  • USA

Doug Lumish is lauded as one of the nation’s top patent trial lawyers and has served as lead trial counsel on numerous matters for the country’s preeminent technology companies. In this role he has won jury trials and summary judgments for plaintiffs and defendants alike, and has defeated billions of dollars in patent infringement claims against his clients. He is Vice Chair of Latham & Watkins' Litigation & Trial Department and former Global Co-Chair of Latham's IP Litigation Practice.

Mr. Lumish is a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, and has been praised by numerous publications including The American Lawyer, which named Mr. Lumish a Litigator of the Week in 2013 for his jury trial win for TransPerfect in a multi-patent infringement case regarding website translation technologies. Chambers USA has listed Mr. Lumish every year since 2007, noting in 2017 that he is "an effective litigator" and a "very capable trial lawyer" whose clients say: "He understands the changing law on patent litigation and he gives practical business advice." The Daily Journal has repeatedly listed Mr. Lumish as one of the Top 75 IP Litigators in California (2011-18) and as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in California (2012-13), and named Mr. Lumish’s jury win for TransPerfect a 2013 Top Plaintiffs' Verdict by Impact. In 2016, Law360 named Mr. Lumish a Tech MVP. In 2013, they named him an IP MVP — one of only 10 in the country — and noted his jury win in East Texas as lead trial counsel for Google in a high-profile patent infringement trial against Eolas and the University of California. Mr. Lumish has been recognized by others including Intellectual Asset Management, which lists Mr. Lumish on its Patent 1000 rankings of the world’s leading patent practitioners, Corporate Counsel which listed Mr. Lumish’s win for Hitachi against MIT and Magsil as one of its Top 10 wins for 2011, The Legal 500, and Super Lawyers.

Mr. Lumish has litigated cases across a diverse technology spectrum including internet and web technologies, database, file system and operating system software, video game technology, touch screen and smartphone technologies, stents, aneurysm treatment and other medical devices, camcorders and PC connectivity, data networking equipment and networking protocols, semiconductor equipment and processes, capillary electrophoresis equipment and processes, PCR equipment and processes, disk drives, cellular technology, biotechnology equipment and processes, and analog and digital circuit design.

His clients have included industry-leading companies such as:

  • Activision*
  • Adobe
  • Amazon 
  • Apple
  • Codexis
  • Disney
  • eBay*
  • Google*
  • HGST
  • Hitachi
  • Hyperion Solutions*
  • Intel*
  • JVC*
  • Life Technologies/Applied Biosystems
  • Matsushita*
  • Microsoft
  • Micrus Endovascular*
  • National Semiconductor*
  • Oracle
  • Skype
  • Symantec
  • Trimble*
  • Western Digital
  • WhatsApp
  • Yahoo!

Mr. Lumish co-taught a patent litigation course at Stanford Law School in 2010 and 2012. He is also a frequent speaker and writer on patent litigation matters. Prior to his legal career, Mr. Lumish was a systems consultant to computer and high technology companies and designed and implemented strategies to automate various business functions, employing a diverse mixture of mainframe, minicomputer, UNIX, and PC technologies.

 Mr. Lumish's experience includes: 

  • Lead counsel for Amazon in a seven-patent case in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington. Won summary judgment in 2015 on §101 grounds and invalidated all asserted claims across all seven patents. Plaintiff, a shell for notorious serial patent litigant Ronald A. Katz, claimed to own fundamental concepts inherent in modern e-commerce and accused numerous features used on the Amazon.com website, including the use of high resolution images, user-indicated areas of interest, and targeted follow-up communications.
  • Lead trial counsel for Arista Networks in highly-publicized 2015 bench trial against OptumSoft concerning IP ownership. Achieved a complete defense victory for Arista, a software-driven cloud networking company, after a two and a half week bench trial in California Superior Court. Judge Kirwan rejected OptumSoft’s interpretation of the parties’ license agreement, adopted Arista’s theory of the case wholesale, and declared Arista to be the owner of all of the disputed files. Phase 2 of the trial concerning misappropriated trade secrets is currently underway.
  • Lead trial counsel for Symantec in a multi-patent Delaware jury trial in 2015. Obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement on the key patent at trial (eliminating 96% of the damages risk to our client), and invalidated a second patent under §101 to reduce any remaining damages risk by half. Post-trial motions pending.
  • Lead trial counsel for Skype in patent infringement suit brought by Gradient in Delaware. Obtained stipulated dismissal for non-infringement in 2015 after construction of the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit.
  • Lead trial counsel for TransPerfect Global, Inc., in a multi-patent infringement case in the US District Court for the Northern District of California related to website translation technologies. Won a jury verdict finding three patents owned by defendant to be both invalid and not infringed by TransPerfect and awarded TransPerfect damages for infringement of its patent-in-suit. This jury verdict victory was named a 2013 Top Plaintiffs' Verdict by Impact by The Daily Journal.
  • Lead trial counsel in Tyler Texas (E.D.Tx.) for Google and YouTube in 2012. Achieved a jury verdict of patent invalidity against Eolas and the University of California which asserted two patents alleged to cover all modern, interactive web pages. Despite multiple reexaminations and numerous licenses to the patents-in-suit, the jury invalidated all asserted claims after only 2.5 hours of deliberation. This verdict defeated claims for hundreds of millions in damages as well as for injunctive relief.*
  • Lead counsel for Hitachi and Shenzen Excelstor in 2011. Won a precedent–setting summary judgment invalidating a patent asserted by M.I.T. and its licensee MagSil in the District of Delaware, and so defeated a claim for more than US$100 million in damages and an injunction after all other defendants in the disk drive space had settled and taken a license to the patent-in-suit.*  
  • Lead counsel for Yahoo! in the Eastern District of Texas. Obtained summary judgment of invalidity for all but two dependent claims (which were later dropped) in a patent suit brought by Paid Search Engine Tools against Yahoo!’s internet advertising technologies. As appellate counsel, helped Yahoo! secure that victory with a summary affirmance in 2012.*
  • Obtained partial summary judgment of divided infringement for Yahoo! in the District of Delaware against Girafa, a software company alleging infringement by the display of thumbnail images on certain Yahoo! web pages.*
  • Trial counsel for Microsoft which obtained a complete defense jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas against Acacia which sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.*
  • Trial and appellate counsel for Oracle Corporation which prevailed on summary judgment and on appeal before the Federal Circuit against Mangosoft which sought more than US$500 million in damages for a patent alleged to cover database clustering technology.*

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham

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.