Henry Bunsow has over three decades of experience trying some of the most difficult and important patent and technology cases, and has built a reputation as one of the country’s top IP trial lawyers. He was recognized by the California Lawyer as Lawyer of the Year, and has received rave reviews from major legal commentators and his clients. He has tried over 40 cases to verdict. His clients refer to him as “a great lawyer” and a “force in the Courtroom” (Chambers rankings), and he has been ranked as a “Preeminent Lawyer,” “Top Lawyer,” and “Super Lawyer” for over a decade.
Henry has a keen ability to present even the most complicated technical and legal issues in a manner that is simple and understandable to jurors and judges alike. He is a master at spotting and presenting the most persuasive facts from amongst volumes of case materials. And, no amount of preparation can protect even the most trial-hardened expert or opponent from a Henry Bunsow cross-examination.
Outside of the courtroom, Henry is an avid golfer, and enjoys horseback riding and spending time with his new grandchild.
Boards & Professional Memberships
- American Arbitration Association, Panel of Arbitrators (formerly)
- Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Member
- International Trade Commission, Member
- San Francisco Bar Association, Member, 1974 – Present
- State Bar of California, Member, 1974 – Present
Awards & Recognition
- AV Preeminent Rated Attorney, Martindale-Hubbell (2013)
- Intellectual Property Attorney of the Year, California Lawyer Magazine (2011)
- The Best Lawyers in America (2009-2010)
- Recognized by Chambers USA for IP and patent law
- “Leading Patent Litigator” by Legal 500 US
- “Leading Lawyer” by Legal 500 US (2010)
- “Super Lawyer” by the Daily Journal (2004-2012)
- “Top 50 IP Litigator in California” by the Daily Journal
- “Top 100 SuperLawyer” for the State of California
- Santa Clara University School of Law, J.D., cum laude
- University of Nevada, B.S., Electrical Engineering
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. District Court, Central District of California
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc. Lead trial counsel representing Ericsson in two patent lawsuits alleging that Apple’s iPhone line of products infringed Ericsson’s security, user interface, and platform architecture patents. Ericsson secured a global patent license agreement and settlement of all pending proceedings on highly favorable terms.
Duckhorn Wine Company v. Duck Commander Inc. Represented Duckhorn Wine Company in a trademark infringement matter against a much larger Napa Valley winery and Duck Commander (of Duck Dynasty fame). Secured confidential settlement in the early stages of litigation to ensure future protection of Duckhorn’s famous duck-related marks.
DuPont Air Products Nanomaterials v. Cabot Microelectronics. Lead trial counsel in this patent infringement case representing DA Nanomaterials. Secured a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims on all four patents at issue. The jury also found no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and no willful infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict.
Duckhorn Wine Company v. Duck Walk Vineyards, Inc. Represented Duckhorn Wine Company in a breach of contract action to enforce prior settlement agreement. After obtaining an order denying Duck Walk’s motion to dismiss Duckhorn’s claims, secured a favorable settlement and entry of judgment imposing geographic limitations on Duck Walk’s sale of certain wines and requiring geographic indicators on Duck Walk’s wine labels.
Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company. Lead trial counsel for Acushnet Company in a patent infringement case alleging that the Titleist Pro V1 golf ball, the most popular golf ball in golf history, infringed four patents owned by Callaway and seeking $250 million in damages. At trial, Acushnet succeeded in proving all four patents were invalid.
Innovative Automation v. Kaleidescape. Represented Kaleidescape in patent infringement case involving home entertainment systems. Case resolved favorably after Plaintiff’s infringement contentions were stricken.
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.
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.
Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc. Represented Harris Corporation in a patent infringement case. The asserted patent related to cellular communications systems and methods that are used to equalize transmitted information in cellular phones and base stations. The jury awarded Harris approximately $61 million in compensatory damages and found that Ericsson’s conduct was “willful”.
O2 Micro v. Bitek. Represented O2 Micro in a continuing series of cases enforcing O2’s patent rights to power converter technology used in LCD screens. A jury trial in Marshall, Texas resulted in a finding in favor of O2 of willful infringement and an injunction.
O2 Micro v. Sumida. Represented O2 Micro in a continuing series of cases enforcing O2’s patent rights to power converter technology used in LCD screens. A jury trial in Marshall, Texas, resulted in a finding in favor of O2 of willful infringement and the maximum amount of damages.
Harris Corporation v. Sanyo. Represented Harris Corporation in a patent infringement case involving two patents on closed caption on-screen displays. Harris was awarded damages of $7 million.
Harris Corporation v. Hyundai. Represented Harris Corporation, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of integrated circuits, in this nine patent infringement action against Hyundai relating to DRAM and SRAM technology. The case was settled at the pretrial stage for the client’s initial settlement target amount and the counterclaims were dismissed.
Harris Corporation v. IXYS. Represented Harris as plaintiff in this patent infringement case involving insulated gate bipolar transistors. The patent was found valid and infringed by the District Court and damages were assessed at a 9.25 percent royalty rate.
LM Ericsson v. Harris Corporation. Represented Harris in this suit brought by Ericsson for infringement of a patent on SLIC circuitry. The jury trial resulted in a finding of no literal infringement and of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was vacated by the trial judge on our motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Generation II Orthotics v. Med Tech and Bledsoe Brace Company. Represented Generation II Orthotics in patent infringement litigation. The jury found infringement of both patents in suit, all claims asserted and willful infringement and awarded $3.4 million in lost profit and royalty damages — the amount asked for in closing
Harris Corporation v. Winbond. Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action relating to memory devices; settled after summary judgment motions were filed.
Harris Corporation v. Netgear. Represented Harris in patent infringement case involving wireless router technology. Resolved in a favorable settlement for Harris.
Harris Corporation v. Ruckus Wireless. Represented Harris in a patent infringement action relating to beam forming and wireless router technology. Resolved in a favorable settlement agreement for Harris after we successfully excluded Ruckus’ experts shortly before trial.
Tekmax, Inc. v. Exide. Represented Tekmax in a patent infringement case against the largest manufacturers of wet-cell batteries in the world for infringement of several Tekmax patents relating to battery manufacturing equipment. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the client. The verdict was affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.