Brian A.E. Smith
Brian Smith is a leading patent trial lawyer with over 20 years of experience. His primary emphasis has, and continues to be, representing clients in complex technology and cases involving a wide range of technologies including electronics, software, mechanics, biotechnology and internet search technology. Brian’s practice also includes complex business litigation including trade secret, antitrust and unfair competition.
Brian has significant trial experience and has served as primary or co-lead counsel in numerous high stakes patent litigation matters in a variety of jurisdictions, including Texas, California, Illinois and Florida. He has served as primary or co-lead counsel in five jury trials in the Eastern District of Texas, winning all five of them – four plaintiff’s verdicts and one defense verdict. Brian also counsels companies on patent licensing and patent portfolio analysis.
Board & Professional Memberships
- American Bar Association
- American Judicature Society
- Association of Business Trial Lawyers
- Bar Association of San Francisco
- San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Association
Publications & Speeches
- “IP Law: Year in Review 2010.” American Corporate Counsel (ACC), San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, November 2010.
- University of Minnesota Law School, 1992, J.D.
- University of Minnesota, 1989, B.A. (Economics), magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc. et al. Secured favorable settlement on behalf of patent holder in litigation involving secure storage technology.
MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. LSI Corporation. Represented MOSAID Technologies Inc. in a breach of contract action involving an assignment of WLAN patents. Secured a favorable settlement after obtaining a judgment of liability.
Mediostream v. Microsoft et al. Bunsow De Mory Smith & Allison was hired on shortly before trial to prepare and try this patent case involving video encoding technology, and successfully resolved it before trial.
Pegasus v DirecTV et al. Represented Pegasus in patent case related to distribution of digital content. Case resolved very favorably to Pegasus shortly before trial.
CSR Technology Inc. v. Bandspeed Inc. Represented Bandspeed against infringement allegations brought by CSR in several forums relating to wireless networking technology. We secured voluntary dismissal of one matter and venue transfer of another; the case resolved favorably thereafter.
Atmel Corporation, et al. v. AuthenTec, Inc. Defended AuthenTec in patent infringement suit brought by fingerprint sensor competitor Atmel. We obtained summary judgment of noninfringement for AuthenTec on both patents-in-suit relating to fingerprint sensor technology, and shortly thereafter, Atmel exited the fingerprint sensor market.
AuthenTec, Inc. v. Atrua Technologies, Inc. Represented AuthenTec in a patent infringement suit relating to fingerprint sensor technology. On the verge of the Markman hearing, the case resolved with AuthenTec acquiring Atrua’s assets.
PowerAgent v. Electronic Data Systems. Represented EDS in a lawsuit filed by a failed Internet company claiming over $10 billion in damages based on allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the federal RICO Act. The arbitration panel found for EDS on all claims. The district court confirmed the award, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
St. Luke’s Hospital v. California Pacific Medical Center. Represented St. Luke’s Hospital in an antitrust action challenging exclusive dealing contracts between a large hospital system and the largest physician’s group in San Francisco under the Cartwright Act. The case settled on favorable terms in excess of $50 million.
Chevron v. Digital Equipment Corporation. Represented Chevron in a case for $32 million in damages against a computer systems integration firm in connection with the massive failure of an extensive systems integration project. The case was settled on favorable terms.
Intergraph Corporation v. Intel Corporation. Represented Intergraph in a case charging Intel with infringing Intergraph’s patents and with monopolizing the microprocessor chip market by cutting off Intergraph in retaliation for Intergraph’s prosecution of its patent claims. The case was settled on favorable terms in excess of $300 million.