Edward J. DeFranco
New York Office
Tel: +1 212-849-7000
Fax: +1 212-849-7100
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Intellectual Property Litigation
International Trade Commission Proceedings
Life Sciences Litigation
Member, The State Bar of New York; Member, The State Bar of California; United States Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Various U.S. District Courts
Ed DeFranco is a partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office and serves as Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel's National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. He has substantial trial experience litigating intellectual property cases, and is particularly known for his expertise in patent jury trials and claim construction hearings. In his twenty years of practice, Mr. DeFranco has litigated cases in every significant patent jurisdiction, including Chicago, Delaware, New York, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Texas. He has also tried cases involving trade secret, unfair competition, trademark, and licensing issues.
With a technical degree in Chemical Engineering, Mr. DeFranco has litigated cases in nearly every technical discipline, including microprocessors, analog circuitry, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, computer software, business methods, batteries, consumer electronics, consumer products, and telecommunications.
At his most recent trial, Mr. DeFranco co-chaired a patent jury case in Boston on patents covering internet software technology and won a complete defense victory for RealNetworks -- the jury found all ten patent claims asserted against RealNetworks not infringed, and seven of the ten claims invalid. Ethos Technologies, the "home-town" plaintiff in the case, had claimed damages of over $200 million but took away nothing. The Federal Circuit affirmed the result less than 24 hours after hearing argument on the plaintiff's appeal.
In addition, Mr. DeFranco was recently co-lead counsel in a case for RealNetworks in which Quinn Emanuel obtained one of the first summary judgment rulings invalidating patent claims based on the recent Supreme Court decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The plaintiff in the case, Friskit, Inc. sought damages of over $70 million for alleged infringement of four patents relating to systems for enabling continuous streaming playback from Internet sites. Quinn Emanuel was able to demonstrate to Judge William W. Schwarzer of the Northern District of California that Friskit's patent claims were nothing more than obvious combinations of elements found in the prior art.
Counsel for Mediatek in a patent case involving IC chipsets for optical drivers.
Counsel for Bally in a patent case involving slot machines and bonusing awards and systems.
Lead counsel for Northrop in a patent case relating to fiber optic gyroscopes.
Counsel for Transonic in a patent case involving hemodialysis machines.
Co-lead counsel for royablue in a patent infringement suit relating to trading securities over multiple electronic exchanges.
One of two counsel responsible for preparing analog circuitry case for summary judgment hearing and jury trial. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement which was recently affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Co-lead trial counsel for Gillette in Mach3 razor patent infringement jury trial relating to the chemical coatings on razor blades where the damages claim against Gillette exceeded $100 million; examined Gillette's technical expert and cross-examined opponent's technical expert during trial.
One of two trial counsel responsible for conducting discovery and preparing case relating to programmable logic controllers for jury trial. Case resulted in a favorable settlement for Gillette.
One of two counsel that presented witnesses at Preliminary Injunction Hearing in Internet patent/trade dress case. Case resulted in a favorable settlement for client Keen.com.
One of two trial counsel for Duracell and Gillette in patent infringement jury trial relating to the chemical compositions of hearing aid batteries. All three of opponent’s patents were found invalid and/or non-infringed in trial in Federal District Court in plaintiff Rayovac’s hometown.
One of three counsel responsible for conducting discovery and preparing summary judgment filings in IC socket litigation. Case resulted in a favorable settlement for client.
Lead counsel for telecom industry start-up in trade secret litigation. Achieved favorable settlement for client.
One of two counsel responsible for conducting discovery and preparing case for trial in computer storage case. Achieved favorable settlement for client.
Responsible for preparation of expert reports and expert witnesses for testimony at trial in computer microprocessor case. Achieved victory for client Cyrix based on license defense.
Lead counsel in trade secret action filed against venture funded start-up founded by former R&D group members. Case resulted in favorable settlement for client.
Lead counsel for OTC in trade secret, trademark, copyright and unfair competition case involving catalogs.