Gabriel S. Gross

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

Gabe Gross is known for his trial skills and courtroom poise and has represented many of the country’s leading life sciences and high technology companies in their most important intellectual property and commercial disputes. He has won jury verdicts, summary judgments, arbitration awards, and appeals, defeating billions of dollars in patent infringement and licensing claims on behalf of his clients.

Mr. Gross, a partner in the Silicon Valley office, is a veteran trial lawyer who focuses on intellectual property and other complex commercial disputes. Mr. Gross is deeply experienced in patent, trade secret, licensing, trademark, copyright, false advertising, and unfair competition claims. With a background in biotechnology, he has represented clients in industries ranging from biotech, pharma, and medical devices to software, hardware, social media, lithium-ion batteries, and consumer products. Mr. Gross has extensive first-chair trial experience and has served as lead counsel for a number of innovative companies. He has represented clients in federal and state courts across the country, including in California, New York, Texas, Delaware, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, before the US International Trade Commission, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and US Customs and Border Protection, as well as in arbitrations domestically and abroad.

Mr. Gross has tried cases to juries involving patent infringement, copyright infringement, and stock purchase disputes. He has tried cases to arbitrators over technology licensing and other commercial disputes. Mr. Gross also is a registered patent attorney with experience in inter partes review and covered business method proceedings.

Mr. Gross’ pro bono experience includes representing clients in inmate civil rights cases, immigration and asylum matters, veterans’ benefits disputes, and unlawful detainer actions.

Mr. Gross enjoys giving back to the community as a volunteer coach for his local high school’s mock trial team.

Speaking Engagements
  • Panelist, “I know it when I see it: Enhancing Damages for Willful Patent Infringement After Halo,” Bar Association of San Francisco IP Section, November 17, 2016
  • Lead Panelist, “Patentable Subject Matter in Life Sciences” and “Challenging Life Sciences Patents at the PTAB,” Silicon Valley Association of General Counsel’s All-Hands Meeting, Santa Clara Convention Center, November 7, 2014
  • Panelist, “Tips and Best Practices for Responding to Patent Assertion Entities,” Bar Association of San Francisco IP Section, October 21, 2014
  • Panelist, “Intellectual Property and Regulatory Issues Facing Biotech Leaders Today,” Biotech Industry Roundtable, Latham & Watkins, May 20, 2014
  • Moderator, “In-House Perspectives on Effective IP and Civil Litigation,” Bar Association of San Francisco IP Section, May 21, 2013
  • Panelist, “The New PTO Post Grant Review Procedures – Are They a Game Changer?” Latham & Watkins, May 16, 2013
  • Invited Lecturer, “Core Concepts in Intellectual Property and Technology Licensing,” UW Master’s in Biotechnology Program, September 2005

Mr. Gross’ experience includes the following:

  • Trial counsel for a global leader in computers and mobile electronics in patent infringement actions against two non-practicing entities. Resolved both cases successfully, including by invalidating several of one NPE’s patents through IPR at the Patent Office.
  • Trial counsel for a leading exercise equipment and media company in patent infringement actions against competitors in the District of Delaware and Western District of Texas.
  • Lead counsel for Acme United Corporation in a patent infringement and breach of contract action against Slice, Inc. relating to ceramic blade cutting products in the District of New Jersey. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Co-lead counsel for Codexis, Inc. in a case about patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other claims against competitor EnzymeWorks, Inc., relating to biocatalysis, in the Northern District of California. Obtained consent judgment of infringement, contempt of court finding, and attorneys’ fees.
  • Trial counsel for LG Chem in trade secret dispute at the ITC relating to electric vehicle batteries. Won default judgment and a contempt finding based on Respondents’ spoliation of evidence.
  • Lead counsel for Acme United Corporation in a trademark, trade dress, and breach of contract claim brought by Slice, Inc. relating to ceramic blade cutting products in the Northern District of California. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Lead counsel for Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. in a trade secret and breach of contract action against services provdier, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Trial counsel for Envia Systems, an innovator in lithium ion battery technology, in a trade secret action brought by competitor NanoeXa, and obtained favorable resolution.
  • Trial counsel for Medivation, Inc. against the University of California in dispute over a license agreement pertaining to a cancer drug, in Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Lead counsel for drug delivery company Mati Therapeutics in a breach of contract action over services relating to clinical trials, in the Southern District of New York. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Won jury verdict for TransPerfect in a multi-patent infringement case between competitors in the Northern District of California. The jury found competitor’s patents invalid and not infringed, and that TransPerfect’s patent was valid and infringed.
  • Represented Arista Networks in a series of patent disputes against Cisco Systems over network switching technologies before the U.S. International Trade Commission and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Won summary judgment of non-infringement of two patents asserted against Genentech’s blockbuster cancer medicines, which was affirmed on appeal in all respects. Obtained writ of mandamus ordering transfer of a patent infringement case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California.*
  • Successfully represented Roche against Stanford University in patent case involving HIV diagnostic test kits, winning summary judgment of patent invalidity for obviousness.*
  • Represented Monster, Inc. in a trademark infringement action against Dolby to protect Monster’s branding of high-performance headphones, in the Northern District of California, and obtained favorable resolution.*
  • Represented General Electric Co. against University of Virginia in patent case involving MRI technologies in the Western District of Virginia, obtained partial summary judgment of no liability, and favorable resolution.*
  • Represented Yahoo! against Blue Spike in a patent infringement case involving technology for signal recognition and identification of digital information, in the Eastern District of Texas, and obtained favorable resolution.*
  • Obtained complete defense victory for Jawbone in the Northern District of California, winning summary judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of patent asserted by competitor Plantronics against Jawbone’s Bluetooth headsets.*
  • Represented Zynga Game Network in bringing copyright infringement action competitor to enforce rights in computer code, in the Northern District of California, and obtained favorable resolution.*
Exemplary Reported Decisions
  • Notice of Commission’s Final Determination Finding Violation of Section 337 (LG Chem v. SK Innovation), Inv. No. 337-TA-1159 (USITC 2021)
  • Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc., 473 Fed. Appx. 885 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
  • University of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Electric Co., 755 F. Supp. 2d 709 (W.D. Va. 2010).
  • In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
  • Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
  • Acme United Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 214 Fed. Appx. 596 (7th Cir. 2007).

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham

    • Blood pressure monitor
    • May 2014
      Presentation looks at how biotechnology-related inventions may or may not qualify as patentable subject matter, the scope and boundaries of the FDA “safe harbor” exception to patent infringement, and the future of “biosimilar” drug approval and regulation under the biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
      share view
 
 
 
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.