"Grant, a ramrod-straight former Navy SEAL with the instincts of a stage actor, questioned the most important witnesses, demolishing the credibility of Gore's story in a series of textbook-worthy cross-examinations."The American Lawyer 2009

Maximilian A. Grant

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

Max Grant is the former Global Chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice, which has twice won the Chambers USA Award for Excellence. The group’s development and trial capabilities were featured in a 2016 article in The Recorder.

Mr. Grant has successfully tried over 25 patent infringement and IP cases to verdict. He also provides strategic business counseling on IP issues. Mr. Grant is nationally recognized as an experienced and innovative trial lawyer.

  • Named the 2016 District of Columbia IP Litigator of the Year by Managing Intellectual Property
  • Known as “a results-oriented attorney who delivers.” He is “strategic, aggressive in litigation and excellent in the courtroom.” He has a “laser focus on key issues and execution of the approved plans” and is an “incredible professional, focused on business outcomes rather than only the legal ones.” – Chambers Global and Chambers USA
  • “Tough, tenacious [and] recommended” in the ITC; is an “experienced first-chair litigator” with “an excellent track record in life science cases.” – The Legal 500 US
  • “Max Grant is at the top of his field – he is one of the best IP litigators in the United States. A former Navy SEAL, Max is tough and tenacious. But he is also smart, savvy and practical. Max adeptly orchestrates all of the assets on the battlefield, but he is always focused on the big picture—winning the war. He has a winning style that is a formidable blend of fearsomeness and respect. ” – The Legal 500 2020
  • Mr. Grant is “hailed as a ferocious litigator” who is “cut from the finest cloth. He is an ‘outstanding leader’ with exceptional organizational skills. His trial skills are widely admired: ‘His presentation is pristine and he has a background that sits well with the courtroom.’” – IAM Patent 1000
  • Recognized three times with Innovative Lawyers Awards for work for C.R. Bard (2010), Cross Match Technologies (2012), and in building Latham’s IP group (2013) – Financial Times

Mr. Grant has secured high profile wins for companies large and emerging, including NVIDIA, Schlumberger, Adobe, Monsanto, CrossMatch Technologies, InfoBionic, and InterDigital. He served as lead counsel for C.R. Bard; after a six-week trial in the US District Court of Arizona, the jury found that W.L. Gore willfully infringed Bard’s patent and upheld validity. The court enhanced damages, awarded fees and imposed a compulsory license. The total award was more than US$1.4 billion and the win was featured in a cover article in the November 2009 issue of The American Lawyer.

Mr. Grant joined Latham in 2002, after serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations during Operation Enduring Freedom. In 2005 he was appointed by the Secretary of Commerce to the Patent Public Advisory Committee, a nine-member board that advises the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office on patent policy. Before attending law school, Mr. Grant served as an aide to Senator John McCain, a Navy SEAL team leader and a US Marine. He is the co-inventor of two patents.

Mr. Grant’s active matters include:

  • RJ Reynolds v. Philip Morris (E.D. Va.; ITC): Lead counsel in multi-jurisdictional dispute on innovative “heat-not-burn” technologies.
  • Green Mountain Glass v. Owens-Illinois (W.D. Tex.): Lead counsel defending case brought by Green Mountain on glass recycling technology.
  • EcoFactor v. Daikin (ITC; D. Mass.; W.D. Tex.): Lead counsel defending ITC investigation and non-parallel court case on smart HVAC systems.
  • Magna Mirrors v. SMR (W.D. Mich.): Lead counsel defending nine-patent case on wide view automotive mirror technology.
  • CardioNet v. InfoBionic (D. Mass.; AAA): Lead counsel defending seven-patent case on remote cardiac monitoring technology. Six patents invalidated in district court and PTAB; summary judgment of noninfringement on final patent. Complete verdict on trade secret claims adjudicated in arbitration.
  • Schlumberger v. EnerPol (S.D. Tex.): Lead counsel asserting two patents on fracking technology used for oil exploration.
  • Hyosung v. Diebold (N.D. Tex.): Lead counsel asserting patent infringement on ATM check sorting technology.

Mr. Grant’s prior matters include:

  • EnerPol v. Schlumberger (E.D. Tex.; Fed. Cir.): Lead counsel defending case on fracking technology. Plaintiff stipulated to judgment of noninfringement after Schlumberger prevailed on claim construction. Affirmed on appeal.
  • Latch v. LET Investor Group (S.D. N.Y.; AAA, Virginia): Lead counsel in multi-jurisdictional dispute involving trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and civil RICO claims. Complete verdict on contract claims adjudicated in arbitration. Litigation favorably resolved after dismissal of Virginia state actions.
  • TecSec v. Adobe (E.D. Va.): Lead counsel retained four months before jury trial after ten years of litigation on encryption technology. Stipulated to infringement and obtained judgment of zero damages after jury trial and post-trial motions.
  • Fractus v. Verizon (E.D. Tex.): Lead counsel retained six months before jury trial in multi-defendant case against three major telecom carriers. Obtained favorable settlement on eve of trial.
  • Morgan v. United States (S.D. N.Y.): Appointed by Court as pro bono counsel in four day bench trial representing formerly pro se prisoner in Federal Torts Claims Act case against US Attorney’s Office for SDNY. Obtained US$130,000 award; highest pro bono award in Court’s recent history.
  • Schlumberger v. Halliburton (AAA): Retained as lead counsel in confidential arbitration on fracking technology. Case favorably settled.
  • 3M v. Amphenol (ITC): Lead counsel in competitor case on shielded electrical ribbon cables. Obtained favorable settlement after claim construction order issued.
  • Samsung v. NVIDIA (E.D. Va.): Lead counsel representing defendant in 6 patent case regarding DRAM and cache memory. Jury verdict of no infringement and invalidity.
  • Acacia v. Schlumberger (W.D. Tex.; Fed. Cir.): Lead counsel defending case brought by Acacia subsidiary on geographic modeling software used for oil exploration. Dismissed on motion to disqualify counsel. Affirmed on appeal.
  • InterDigital v. ZTE (D. Del.; Fed.Cir.): Lead counsel in one-week jury trial asserting three patents relating to 3G and WiFi wireless devices. Jury verdict that all asserted claims infringed and valid. Affirmed on appeal.
  • Schlumberger v. Baker Hughes (AAA): Brought in as counsel four months before hearing on horizontal oil drilling technology, co-counseled with Winston & Strawn. Case settled favorably after three week hearing.
  • Delphix v. Actifio (N.D. Cal.; D. Mass.; PTAB): Lead counsel in multi-jurisdictional litigation relating to virtual storage and infrastructure for database systems: five defensive and two offensive patents in CA; two offensive patents in MA; 12 IPRs. Case favorably settled after PTAB invalidated all asserted claims.
  • InterDigital v. Nokia (ITC): Lead counsel representing patent holder asserting two patents on 3G & LTE wireless devices. After bench trial, patents found infringed and valid by ALJ; overturned by Commission.
  • Cross Match Technologies v. Suprema & Mentalix (ITC & E.D. Tex.; Fed.Cir.): Lead counsel in competitor case on biometric identification technology. ITC issued exclusion order barring accused products from importation into the US. Argued en banc appeal affirming exclusion order.
  • Medivation v. Univ. Calif. Regents & Jung (Calif.): Lead counsel representing biotech patent holder in four-week state court trial regarding licensing rights to small-molecule drugs to treat prostate cancer, asserting breach of contract and fraud. Jury returned mixed verdict.
  • Schlumberger v. Baker Hughes (AAA): Lead counsel asserting four patents on optical analysis of hydrocarbons in formation reservoirs. Retained eight weeks before hearing; co-counseled with Kirkland & Ellis. Case favorably settled on eve of trial.
  • CR Bard v. W.L. Gore (D. Ariz.; Fed. Cir.): Lead counsel in six-week jury trial on vascular grafts. Trial conducted in 2007. Jury verdict of willful infringement and US$185 million in past damages. On post-trial motions, damages doubled to US$371 million, awarded US$19 million in fees and compulsory license. Total award over US$1.4 billion.
  • Wavetronix v. Electronic Integrated Systems (D. Utah): Lead counsel for defendant in patent case on radar technology for traffic monitoring. Judgment of noninfringement after 14 days of bench trial proceedings. Affirmed.
 
 
 
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.