Henry Bunsow

Marc Belloli


phone  (415) 426-4731 
email   [email protected]
vcard   Download vCard

Marc Belloli is a trial lawyer whose practice focuses on patent litigation and patent monetization.  He has successfully tried cases and obtained favorable settlements for his clients in numerous venues across the country.   

Marc has had a string of recent and notable successes. He served as lead trial counsel for Garrity Power services against Samsung in a case concerning two-way wireless charging, which settled just before trial. He was also the architect of a damages case that resulted in a $172.5M jury verdict for Wapp Technologies against Micro Focus. In that case he also secured judgment as a matter of law against Micro Focus’s prior art defenses just before the case went to the jury, leaving the defendant essentially without any defense for the jury to consider. 

Marc has led teams in dozens of patent infringement litigations on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants, handling all aspects of the cases including trial and appeals to the Federal Circuit. In addition to handling litigation matters, Marc is experienced at assisting clients in monetizing their intellectual property outside of litigation.  

Marc enjoys racing sailboats and going to his daughter’s swim meets and water polo matches.  


  • Juris Doctor, University of California Hastings College of the Law 
  • Bachelor of Arts, Economics, University of Pennsylvania

Court & Bar Admissions 

  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California

Representative Matters

  • Garrity Power Services v. Samsung. Lead trial counsel for Garity Power Services a patent infringement case concerning two-way wireless charging. The case settled on the eve of trial. 
  • Wapp Technologies, LLC v. Micro Focus, Inc., HP Enterprises, Inc.Represented Wapp Technologies at trial and secured a jury verdict of $172.5 million and a finding of willful infringement for the client. 
  • Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II v. Motorola Mobility (District of Delaware and Southern District of Florida). Represented Intellectual Ventures in back-to-back patent infringement 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. 
  • OpenTV, Inc. v. NFL Enterprises, LLC. Represented OpenTV in a seven-patent case concerning streaming technology. 
  • Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (E.D. Texas) Represented Polaris PowerLED in a patent infringement case involving automatic brightness control technology implemented in Samsung mobile phones and televisions. The case settled on the eve of the jury trial. 
  • Pragmatus AV LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. (District of Delaware) Represented Pragmatus in a five-patent infringement action against Yahoo!. The case involved distributed video teleconferencing technology. 
  • Pragmatus AV LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. (Southern District of Florida) Represented Plaintiff Pragmatus in a four-patent infringement action against Citrix. The case involved distributed video teleconferencing technology. 
  • MicroUnity v. Palm (Eastern District of Texas) Represented Palm in a twelve-patent infringement action against MicroUnity. The case involved microprocessor technology. 
  • U.S. Philips v. Palm (Northern District of California) Represented Palm in a patent infringement action against Philips. The case involved wireless consumer devices. 
  • EON v. Palm (District of Delaware, Eastern District of Texas) Represented Palm in two patent infringement actions against EON. The case involved wireless consumer devices. 


BDSA Logo Square

Attorneys. Technologists. Trusted Advisors.
© 2021-2023 Bunsow De Mory LLP

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