Victoria F. Maroulis
Silicon Valley Office
Tel: +1 650-801-5000
Fax: +1 email@example.com
Health Care Litigation
Intellectual Property Litigation
Life Sciences Litigation
Yale Law School
Coker Fellow, 1994-1995
Yale Journal of International Law:
Book Review Editor, 1993-1994
(A.B., Phi Beta Kappa, 1992)
“Challenges of Monetizing IP in the Wake of AIA and other Patent Reform Efforts,” chapter in “IP Monetization 2014: Maximize the Value of Your IP Assets” (2014).
“China’s Evolving IP Regime and Avenues of Enforcement,” book chapter in Defending Intellectual Property Rights Cases in China, Thomson Reuters/Aspatore (2013).
“International Patent Litigation,” panel presentation, Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association Spring Seminar (June 2013, Las Vegas).
“Third Party Funding of Patent Litigation,” paper and presentation, IP Monetization Conference, Practicing law Institute (April 2013, San Francisco; May 2013, New York.”
"Patent Reform Update,” paper and presentation, IP Monetization Conference, Practicing Law Institute (April 2012, San Francisco; May 2012, New York)
“New Trends and Ways to Protect Your IP,” panel discussion, The Changing Legal and Financial Landscape of China Conference (June 9, 2011, Burlingame).
"The Royal Flush: Recent Developments Concerning Royalties and the Entire Market Value Rule,” paper and presentation, AIPLA Spring Meeting (May 12, 2011, San Francisco)
"Patent Reform Update,” paper and presentation, IP Monetization Conference, Practicing Law Institute (May 5, 2011, San Francisco)
“Jury IP Trial,” live mock trial of a simulated IP license dispute and panel discussion on U.S. jury trials for attorneys and business leaders (May 24, 2010, Tel Aviv, Israel)
“IP Law Developments and Trends,” Panelist, Successful Women in IP Spring Seminar (May 13, 2010, San Francisco)
"Recent Developments in U.S. Patent Litigation," conference for attorneys and business leaders on "Litigating Patent Cases in the United States Successfully and Efficiently" (November 12, 2009, Tel Aviv, Israel)
"Protecting Your Company's Intellectual Property in the Global Marketplace," lecture to the 65th Annual Meeting of Greeting Card Association (October 2006)
"Litigating Patent License Disputes: Licensees' Challenges to Validity,"
The Licensing Journal (Volume 26, Number 2, February 2006)
"When Things Go Wrong: Litigating Patent Licensing Disputes," PLI Lecture (June 2005)
Chosen for The Recorder’s list of 50 women leaders in tech law, 2014
Northern California Super Lawyer, 2012-2014
Ranked in the 2014 edition of The Best Lawyers in America for IP Litigation (Redwood Shores, CA).
IAM Patent 1000, The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, 2013-2014
IP Star, Managing Intellectual Property, 2013
Selected to The American Lawyer’s “45 under 45” list of outstanding women lawyers (January 2011)
Member of the Quinn Emanuel IP Litigation team named IP Litigation Counsel of the Year by Cisco Systems (December 2010)
Selected to The Daily Journal's list of Top Women Litigators (May 2010)
Member of the Quinn Emanuel IP Litigation team named IP Litigation Department of the Year by The American Lawyer Magazine (2010)
Named one of 10 Intellectual Property Rising Stars nationally under the age of 40 by Law360 (2010)
The Legal Aid Society Award for Outstanding Pro Bono Service (1999)
Davis Polk & Wardwell:
Law Clerk to the Hon. James C. Francis, IV, United States Magistrate Judge:
Southern District of New York, 1995-1996
Guest Lecturer, Stanford Law School Trial Advocacy Workshop
Member, American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section
Member, Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association
Member, Advisory Board, IP Law 360
PLI (Professional Law Institute), Faculty in annual “Patent Monetization Program”
The State Bar of California; The State Bar of New York; United States Court of Appeals: Ninth Circuit, Federal Circuit; United States District Court: Central District of California, Northern District of California, Southern District of California, Eastern District of California, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, Northern District of New York,
Eastern District of Texas, Northern District of Illinois, Trial Bar
Send to a friend
Victoria Maroulis is a Co-Managing Partner of the Silicon Valley Office and a Co-Chair of the firm’s Life Science Practice. Mrs. Maroulis’ practice primarily focuses on intellectual property litigation. She has litigated and provided counseling for companies on a broad range of patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets matters in the fields of telecommunications, software, hardware, semiconductors, medical devices and biotechnology for clients such as Samsung, General Electric, Cisco, and Genentech. Victoria regularly writes and lectures on IP matters and has taught trial practice at Stanford Law School and the in-house Quinn Emanuel program. In the past several years, Victoria has been selected as one of 10 Intellectual Property Rising Stars under 40 nationwide by Law360, recognized in the IAM Patent 1000 as a one of the leading patent litigators world-wide, named as one of the top 100 women litigators in California by The Daily Journal, featured in The American Lawyer’s “45 under 45” list of outstanding female attorneys, and chosen for The Recorder’s list of 50 women leaders in tech law.
In the fields of Biotechnology and Medical Devices, she has represented Genentech, Monsanto, Bio-Rad, and GE Healthcare.
In the Software, Hardware, Networking and Semiconductors fields, she has represented AOL, IBM, Cisco, NETGEAR, D-Link, Belkin, NetSuite, Nuance, Oracle, Samsung, Borland Software, and Macrovision.
Since 2011 has been serving as trial counsel for Samsung in a series of patent, design patent, and trade dress disputes with Apple in the Northern District of California, Federal Circuit, and the International Trade Commission.
Successfully represented Cisco as trial counsel in an ITC investigation (337-TA-753) initiated by Rambus involving six patents covering memory controller and chip-to-chip interface technologies. Obtained initial determination of no violation based on invalidity and unenforceability due to willful spoliation of evidence. Obtained Commission Opinion affirming the determination of no violation based in part on invalidity and spoliation, as well as non-infringement for some claims and no domestic industry for all patents
On behalf of Genentech, won summary judgment of non-infringement on all claims of two patents asserted by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland against two highly successful anti-cancer products.
On behalf of Cisco, Belkin, NETGEAR, and D-Link, won complete summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity in a patent infringement case relating to wireless routers.
On behalf of Genentech, secured only the second writ of mandamus ever to be issued by the Federal Circuit in the seminal In re Genentech case in relation to a motion to transfer venue from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California.
Obtained a complete victory for Cisco in a closely watched patent infringement dispute where plaintiff asserted a patent on a method for Voice over Internet Protocol telephony against Cisco’s line of Integrated Services Routers. Prevailed on a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, on the ground that the patent was related to the former employer’s business, ownership was automatically transferred to the employer under the assignment agreement.
Represented twenty-three cell phone manufacturers – including Motorola, Samsung and Sony Ericsson – accused by the University of Texas of infringing a patent relating to text messaging using Touch-Tone telephones. The University alleged that the manufacturers infringed its patent by incorporating predictive text messaging software into over 400 models of cell phones. Several defendants – not represented by our firm – settled identical claims for $3.27 for each cell phone sold in the United States. The potential liability to the clients therefore approached $2 billion.
Represented Genentech in a multi-district patent litigation concerning recombinant DNA technology and the process of co-transformation to produce proteins in mammalian cells. Obtained a broad covenant not to sue, and by agreeing to the covenant, the patentee permanently surrendered a claim against the client for hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties.
Represented AOL's subsidiary, Tegic Communications, in a patent suit against an infringing competitor. After a three-week jury trial involving complex text input software technology, defeated the attack on the validity of two Tegic patents and won a unanimous jury verdict of willful infringement and $9 million in compensatory damages.
Represented Monsanto in a patent infringement matter when the plaintiff patentee, a local public university, alleged that our client’s recombinant bovine growth hormone product infringed its patent and sought $1.8 billion in treble damages and a permanent injunction. After winning a summary judgment eliminating one of the two accused products, and limiting the literal coverage of the claims to technology “known and available” in 1980, the case settled favorably the day before the jury trial was to start.
Represented AstraZeneca in a patent infringement action involving cancer medication. Obtained summary judgment on the patent misuse defense.
Represented Kmart Corporation, winning a bench trial upholding its multi-million dollar contract with its co-branded credit card partner. For the same client, obtained dismissal with prejudice, on the eve of trial, of a multi-million dollar lease dispute brought against it.
Represented IBM, obtaining a favorable settlement during a bench trial in a multi-million dollar breach-of-contract action involving third-party equipment leasing.
Represented Borland Software Corporation in a trademark infringement action where the plaintiff sought $250 million dollars and permanent injunctive relief. Was able to obtain a favorable pre-trial settlement.
Represented several media companies, including AOL Time Warner and The Columbia House Company, in a Section 17200 unfair competition suit alleging millions of dollars in damages arising from the collection of use taxes on the shipping and handling costs of compact discs, tapes, videos, DVDs and other similar products. Obtained a dismissal with prejudice at the pleading stage.