Gabriel K. Bell

Washington, D.C.
  • 555 Eleventh Street, NW
  • Suite 1000
  • Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
  • USA

Gabriel Bell, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins, is a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation and Supreme Court and Appellate Practices.

Mr. Bell’s practice focuses on high-stakes intellectual property litigation in the Federal Circuit. Mr. Bell has represented a range of companies in the automotive, computer, biotech, financial, pharmaceutical, retail, and insurance sectors. He has successfully argued over 10 appeals before the Federal Circuit and has led the briefing in dozens of others. Mr. Bell also has particular expertise in litigating patent eligibility under § 101.

Representative clients include:

  • Capital One
  • Ford
  • Freddie Mac
  • Honda
  • Jaguar Land Rover North Am.
  • Par Pharmaceutical Cos.
  • Symantec
  • Volvo

Prior to joining Latham, Mr. Bell was counsel for the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He has also held positions at the US Department of Justice and NASA Langley Research Center. In addition, he clerked for Judge Janice Rogers Brown on the D.C. Circuit, and Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham on the Fifth Circuit.

Mr. Bell is admitted to practice in the Supreme Court and the Fifth, Ninth, D.C., and Federal Circuits.

Representative appellate victories in intellectual property matters include:

  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 725 F. App’x 976 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (§ 101)
  • Realtime Data, LLC v. Riverbed Tech., Inc., 742 F. App’x 505 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
  • Braemar Mfg. v. InfoBionic, Inc., 721 F. App’x 990 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
  • Vehicle Interface Techs. v. Jaguar Land Rover, 691 F. App’x 626 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
  • Paice v. Ford, 685 F. App’x 940; 685 F. App’x 950, (Fed. Cir. 2017)       
  • Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One, 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (§ 101)
  • InterDigital Communications, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., 711 F. App’x 998 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
  • Paice v. Ford, 681 F. App’x 885; 681 F. App’x 904 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
  • UUSI v. Webasto Roof Sys., 671 F. App'x 790 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (§ 101)
  • Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC v. Schlumberger Limited, 837 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
  • Jericho Systems Corp. v. Axiomatics Inc., 642 F. App’x 979 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (§ 101)
  • Vehicle Interface Techs., LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 639 F. App’x 651 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
  • Suprema v. ITC & Cross Match Tech., 796 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)
  • OIP Tech., Inc. v., Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (§ 101)
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (§ 101)
  • Exela Pharma Sci., LLC v. Lee and Cadence Pharm., 781 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
  • Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Graff/Ross Holdings LLP, 604 F. App’x 930 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (§ 101)
  • Lugus IP LLP v. Volvo Car Corp., 604 F. App’x 932 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
  • Cadence Pharm. Inc. v. Exela Pharmsci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
  • United Video Properties, Inc. v., Inc., 561 F. App’x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
  • Ultramercial v. Hulu, Inc. & Wild Tangent, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (§ 101)   
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.