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:

  • Co-lead counsel for biotech leader Codexis, Inc. in a case over the infringement of 10 Codexis patents, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, tortious interference, and unfair competition against competitor EnzymeWorks, Inc., relating to engineered enzymes and biocatalysis technology, in the Northern District of California. Obtained consent judgment of infringement and won contempt of court finding with attorneys’ fees award.
  • Lead counsel for Acme United Corporation in a patent infringement and breach of contract action brought by Slice, Inc. relating to ceramic blade cutting products in the District of New Jersey. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Lead counsel for drug delivery company Mati Therapeutics in a breach of contract action against a commercial research organization over services relating to clinical trials, in the Southern District of New York. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Lead counsel for Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. in a trade secret and breach of contract action against provider of pharmacy services, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Lead counsel for pioneering gene editing company in arbitration over a patent licensing dispute.
  • Won a jury verdict for TransPerfect Global, Inc. in a multi-patent infringement case between competitors in the Northern District of California related to website translation technologies. The jury found the defendant’s patents invalid and not infringed by TransPerfect, and that TransPerfect’s patent was valid and infringed. Secured an award of over US$1 million in damages, and won a permanent injunction. TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. MotionPoint Corp., No. 10-CV-2590 CW, 2014 WL 6068384 (Nov. 13, 2014).
  • Won summary judgment of non-infringement of two patents asserted against Genentech’s highly successful anti-cancer medicines, which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in all respects. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc., 473 Fed. Appx. 885 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc., Nos. C 08-4909 SI, C 09-4919 SI, 2011 WL 839411 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2011).*
  • Successfully represented Roche against Stanford University in patent case involving HIV diagnostic test kits, winning summary judgment of patent invalidity for obviousness. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2008).*
  • Represented Arista Networks in a series of patent disputes against Cisco Systems over network switching technologies before the US International Trade Commission and US Customs and Border Protection.
  • Represented Monster, Inc. in a trademark infringement and unfair competition action against Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation to protect Monster’s branding of high-performance headphones, in the Northern District of California, and obtained favorable resolution.*
  • Lead counsel for Acme United Corporation in a trademark, trade dress, false designation of origin, and breach of contract claim brought by Slice, Inc. relating to ceramic blade cutting products in the Northern District of California. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Represented Acme United Corporation in successful defense of false advertising claims brought by competitor Fiskars Brands, Inc. in the Western District of Wisconsin, and obtained dismissal of all claims.*
  • Represented pharmaceutical company Medivation, Inc. against the Regents of the University of California in a breach of contract action over a patent license agreement pertaining to a prostate cancer therapy, in Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • Trial counsel for a leading global manufacturer of LCD and other display technologies in a dispute over a collaboration agreement and patent license in an international arbitration that was tried before a panel of three arbitrators in a two-week hearing, and obtained favorable resolution.
  • Represented Envia Systems, an innovator in lithium-ion battery technology, in a trade secret action brought by competitor NanoeXa, and obtained favorable resolution.
  • Obtained writ of mandamus from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of Genentech, ordering transfer of a patent infringement case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009).*
  • 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 General Electric Co. against University of Virginia Patent foundation in patent case involving MRI technologies in the Western District of Virginia, obtained partial summary judgment of no liability before issuance of reexamination certificate, and favorable resolution. University of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Electric Co., 755 F. Supp. 2d 709 (W.D. Va. 2010).*
  • Represented General Electric Co. in action to enforce patents relating to medical image archiving and communications systems against DR Systems, in the Eastern District of New York, and obtained 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.*
  • Represented Zynga Game Network in bringing copyright infringement action against Green Patch, Inc. to enforce rights in computer code for social games, in the Northern District of California, and obtained favorable resolution.*
  • Represented Connexus Credit Union against Connex Credit Union in trademark infringement action in the District of Connecticut and the Western District of Wisconsin. Obtained favorable resolution.*
  • Represented Kraft Foods in patent infringement actions against Procter & Gamble Co. in multiple venues pertaining to coffee container innovations, and obtained favorable resolution.*
  • Represented Tegic Communications in proceedings to enforce consent judgment of willful patent infringement against Zi Corporation, in an action relating to text disambiguation technology used in the Nintendo Wii, in the Northern District of California, and obtained favorable resolution.*
  • For Acme United Corporation, won reversal of summary judgment in suit over insurance coverage against St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, relating to insurer’s failure to defend false advertising suit, in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.*
  • Represented biotech company Geron Corporation in patent licensing dispute against Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation relating to foundational patents on human embryonic stem cell technology, and obtained favorable resolution.*
Exemplary Reported Decisions
  • 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.