Elizabeth Day

Elizabeth Day

Partner

phone  (650) 351-7236
email   [email protected]
vcard   Download vCard

Elizabeth is a top trial lawyer who concentrates her practice on patent infringement litigation, other intellectual property related disputes and commercial litigation in district courts across the United States and at the International Trade Commission. For almost thirty years, she has managed and tried a multitude of highly complex cases involving diverse technological areas, including semiconductor packaging, Wi-Fi and cellular communications, smartphones, flash memory, computer security, computer networking, data compression, interactive television and content delivery, among others. 

In addition to her more than a dozen jury trials, Elizabeth has primary responsibility for handling the damages aspects of the cases on which she works. Elizabeth also has significant experience in valuing and monetizing intellectual property, including portfolio diligence and strategy. 

In her free time, Elizabeth enjoys interior decorating and traveling.  

Education

  • Juris Doctor, University of California School of Law, Davis, CA 
  • Masters of Business Administration, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis, CA 
  • Bachelor of Arts (cum laude), Government, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Court & Bar Admissions 

  • California 
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California 
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

Venue Experience

  • International Trade Commission
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California 
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia  

Awards & Recognition

  • Best Lawyers
  • Daily Journal‘s Top Intellectual Property Lawyers in California
  • Daily Journal‘s Top Women Litigators in California 
  • Woman of Influence 
  • Super Lawyer 

 

  • Relink US LLC v. Tesla, Inc. (W.D. Tex.): Lead counsel for Relink in both IPR and district court proceedings in connection with Relink’s infringement claims against Tesla’s Powerwall systems. Relink successfully defeated Tesla’s IPR petition at the institution stage. District court matter remains pending.

  • Identitii Ltd. v. JP Morgan Chase (D. Del.): Lead counsel for Identitii in both IPR and district court proceedings in connection with Identitii’s assertion of a blockchain-related patents against JP Morgan Chase. Identitii successfully defeated Chase’s two IPR petitions at the institution stage. District court matter remains pending.

  • Dell Technologies Inc. v. VideoLabs, Inc. (W.D. Tex.): Lead counsel for VideoLabs in both IPR and district court proceedings in connection with VideoLabs’ assertion of three video coding-related patents against Dell. VideoLabs successfully defeated all of Dell’s IPR petitions at the institution stage. In the district court, the case settled favorably on the eve of trial.

  • Garrity Power Services v. Samsung (E.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for Garrity Power Services in a patent infringement case concerning two-way wireless charging. Case settled favorably on the eve of trial. 

  • Wapp Tech Limited Partnership v. Seattle Spinco, Inc., et. al. (E.D. Tex.):  Represented innovator in mobile application development technology in three-patent case directed against mobile app testing and development products. Won $172.5M verdict. Case settled favorably.  
  • Broadband iTV, Inc. v. AT&T Communications, LLC (W.D. Tex.):  Represented pioneering video on demand and content management technology company in five patent case. Won claim construction on all contested terms. Case settled favorably. 
  • Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (E.D. Tex.): Represented Polaris PowerLED in a substantial patent infringement case involving automatic brightness control technology implemented in Samsung mobile phones and televisions. The case settled favorably on the eve of jury trial. 
  • OpenTV, Inc. v. NFL Enterprises, LLC (E.D. Tex.):  Represented OpenTV in a seven patent case involving verifying PIN codes giving users access to password-restricted websites and applications, methods of inserting content into video streams using time-code indicators, methods of allowing users to interact with videos and a method of connecting multiple video metadata sets, methods of programming software to identify if a computer does not have the right applications to run certain media, methods of combining multiple media data streams into a single broadcast stream and methods of connecting streaming videos with other websites via a link.
  • Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II v. Motorola Mobility (D. Del., S.D. Fla.): Represented Intellectual Ventures in back to back patent infringement jury trials in Delaware and won both trials. The asserted patents relate to technology in smart phones including sending MMS messages, power allocation and conservation and docking stations. 
  • Intellectual Ventures II v. JPMorgan et. al. (S.D.N.Y): Represented Intellectual Ventures II in a patent infringement matter against several JPMorgan Chase entities. The asserted patent relates to a cryptographic co-processor for processing RSA or ECC algorithms. 
  • Intellectual Ventures II v. Citibank et. al. (S.D.N.Y.):  Represented Intellectual Ventures II in a patent infringement matter against several Citibank entities. The asserted patent relates to a cryptographic co-processor for processing RSA or ECC algorithms. 
  • Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Control Technology (337-TA-845):  Represented Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corporation, Starsight Telecast, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc. and Index Systems, Inc. against LG, Mitsubishi, NetFlix, Roku and Vizio. The asserted patents related to interactive programming guides and parental controls technology. 
  • Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Control Technology (337-TA-820): Represented Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., Gemstar Development and Index Systems, Inc. against Vizio. The asserted patents related to online programming guides. 
BDSA Logo Square

Attorneys. Technologists. Trusted Advisors.
© 2021-2024 Bunsow De Mory LLP

Attorney Advertising. Past results are not an indication of future performance.