Attorney Detail Banner
Back to Attorneys
Kapgan, Yury
Direct Tel: +1 213-443-3222
Los Angeles
Tel: +1 213 443 3000 Fax: +1 213 443 3100
Silicon Valley
Tel: +1 650 801 5000 Fax: +1 650 801 5100

Yury Kapgan is a partner in the Los Angeles and Silicon Valley offices of Quinn Emanuel and Co-Chair of the firm’s Artificial Intelligence practice group.  He specializes in complex commercial and intellectual property matters and has advised companies ranging from start-ups to large international corporations.  He has litigated cases involving intellectual property infringement and misappropriation, employee mobility, breach of contract, defamation and other areas.  He has also been involved in numerous technology acquisitions and advised on licensing all forms of intellectual property.  His publications and presentations have covered topics such as generative AI and IP, leveraging IP assets, patent litigation strategy and damages, digital rights management, social media, and video game licensing.

In 2021 and 2022, Yury was named among the Top Trade Secrets Lawyers in California by the Daily Journal. In 2023, IAM Patent 1000 ranked Yury among top patent litigators working on “the cutting edge of technology” and called him “a quick strategic thinker who operates best in challenging situations." In 2024, he was recognized by Lawdragon in AI Litigation.

Yury serves on the Board of Directors for the Berkeley Law Alumni Association, and is President of the Berkeley Law Los Angeles Alumni Chapter.


  • Representing NVIDIA adverse to Valeo in trade secret litigation involving automotive artificial intelligence technology.
  • Representing Nektar Therapeutics against Eli Lilly & Co. alleging breach of contract, unfair competition and related torts for development of drug candidate to treat autoimmune disease.
  • Representing Wisk Aero, a joint venture of Boeing and Kitty Hawk, in a trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement case against Archer Aviation, related to electric vertical takeoff and landing (“eVTOL”) aircraft.  See
  • Representing Roofr Inc. against Pictometry International and Eagle View Technologies in patent litigation related to aerial photography software for roofing professionals.   
  • Representing Cerebras Systems against Rex Computing in patent litigation relating to computer architecture used for artificial intelligence deep learning applications.
  • Represented Cornerstone OnDemand against Ridgeview IP in a patent litigation related to recruiting software.
  • Representing a venture capital professional in a dispute with a former employer.
  • Represented the CEO of Nutanix in a case filed by VMware alleging breach of contract, fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty, and unfair competition, related to the resignation of the CEO from his former employer.  In an expedited proceeding, the Delaware Chancery Court ordered VMware to advance all of Mr. Ramaswami’s legal fees and expenses, forcing VMware to pay for Mr. Ramaswami’s lawyers in addition to its own lawyers.  Soon thereafter, VMware dropped its lawsuit.  Nutanix issued the following statement: “VMware’s lawsuit was misguided and inappropriate, as there was no wrongdoing on Mr. Ramaswami’s part. VMware has agreed to dismiss the lawsuit and we are very pleased that the matter has been favorably resolved.”
  • Represented Zynga in a consumer class action related to its social slot games.  After Zynga filed an early Motion to Compel Arbitration, Stay Proceedings, and Strike Plaintiffs’ Class Allegations, the plaintiffs dismissed their case voluntarily.
  • Represented Solatube in two cases filed by competitor QC Manufacturing.  In the first case, an arbitration related to alleged breach of a prior agreement settling a patent lawsuit, after trial the arbitrator ruled in Solatube’s favor, rejecting QC’s breach of contract claims, invalidating terms of the parties’ 2018 settlement agreement and its liquidated damages provision, holding the contract and QC’s conduct constituted an illegal restraint on a lawful business, and that QC engaged in patent misuse.  The arbitrator deemed Solatube to be the prevailing party, and awarded Solatube all of its fees, which was entered as a court judgment.  In the second case, a patent litigation, the court in the Central District of California denied QC’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and then granted Solatube’s motion for summary judgment, invalidating QC’s asserted patent.  The court then awarded Solatube its attorneys’ fees, finding the case to be “exceptional” and effectively ending QC’s litigation.
  • Represented BlackBerry in multiple technology disputes against Facebook and Twitter.
  • Represented Qualcomm against Apple in wide-ranging technology disputes spanning multiple jurisdictions, ultimately resulting in a settlement including a payment from Apple to Qualcomm, a six-year license agreement and a multiyear chipset supply agreement.
  • Obtained one of the largest jury verdicts in the U.S. in an intellectual property matter in 2014 (and the largest jury verdict in California that year), representing plaintiff ViaSat against defendants Loral Space & Communications and Space Systems/Loral in a patent and breach of contract litigation involving high-speed satellite technology capable of providing broadband services to consumers and businesses. After a three week trial, the jury returned a verdict of $283 million in favor of ViaSat. This victory was named Top Verdict of 2014 by The National Law Journal, Top 10 Plaintiff Verdict by Dollar by the Daily Journal, and Top California Verdict of 2014 by The Recorder, achieving the highest dollar amount across all categories.
  • Represented Varian Medical Systems in a multi-jurisdiction patent litigation spanning Delaware, California, the International Trade Commission, Germany and the United Kingdom against its primary competitor Elekta, involving patents related to radiation-based imaging and therapy technology for cancer treatment. Obtained an ITC victory in which Elekta was found to infringe multiple, valid patents owned by Varian, after which Varian negotiated a highly favorable settlement.
  • Represented Riot Games in multiple disputes involving software and networking technology.   
  • Represented ViaSat in a patent litigation brought by Advanced Media Networks involving networking technology.
  • Represented Hyundai and Kia in a patent litigation involving hybrid vehicle technology.
  • Represented Symantec in two patent litigation matters brought by Intellectual Ventures related to computer security and storage technologies.
  • Represented Symantec in numerous other litigation matters, including cases for patent and copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.  Technologies have included computer security, antivirus, firewall, product activation, volume management and automated system recovery.
  • Represented plaintiff Veritas (a wholly owned subsidiary of Symantec) against Microsoft in a multi-faceted case involving claims of trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement, copyright infringement, and breach of contract in the field of volume management software, storage array network and automated system recovery technologies.
  • Represented HTC in an International Trade Commission investigation initiated by Apple involving patents covering multi-finger gestures and touch panel sensor design.
  • Represented AMD in dispute with Intel regarding their key patent cross-license agreement. Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion to settle all disputes between the parties.
  • Advised the government of Abu Dhabi on modernization of its intellectual property and related commercial laws and practices.
  • Represented DIRECTV in numerous licensing matters, including negotiating agreement for development and deployment of digital rights management technologies in set-top boxes, and advising on patent pools and standards organizations.
  • Represented FLIR Systems in defending against patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract claims related to infrared camera technology.
  • Represented Chevron in multi-year intellectual property analysis and negotiations related to divestiture of joint venture that commercialized advanced automotive battery technology.
  • Represented Limelight Networks in defending against patent infringement claims related to live streaming network technology.
  • Represented Adobe in negotiating agreement to license digital rights management technologies.
  • Represented Monolithic Power Systems in defending against patent infringement claims related to voltage control regulators.  Also advised Monolithic Power Systems on microprocessor manufacturing and similar agreements.
  • Represented Volvo in patent infringement dispute related to child safety seats.
  • Represented Tetris in defending against breach of contract claims related to video game license agreement.
  • Represented Demand Media in disputes involving domain names as well as numerous technology acquisitions and licensing matters.
  • Represented Absolute Software in its purchase and licensing of anti-theft technologies from Phoenix Technologies.
  • University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall)
    (J.D., 2001)
  • University of California, Los Angeles
    (B.A., 1998)
  • The State Bar of California
  • Latham & Watkins LLP:
    • 2001– 2012
  • Lawdragon, AI Litigation, 2024
  • IAM Patent 1000, top patent litigators, 2023
  • Daily Journal, Top Trade Secrets Lawyers in California, 2021-2022
  • “Recalling Scalia, a Literary Stylist Who Scorned ‘Jiggery-Pokery,’” The New York Times (February 25, 2016) (interview)
  • “Betting the company: the bottom line in patent litigation,” Daily Journal (January 3, 2012)
  • “Game Over for California's Video Game Law,” Client Alert (August 2011)
  • “Restricting Distribution of Copyrighted Works: A Ninth Circuit Hat Trick,” BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 26 (May 6, 2011)
  • “Vernor v. Autodesk: Software and the First Sale Doctrine under Copyright Law,” Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal (Vol. 23 No. 3, March 2011) - cited in Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 2011)
  • “Buying Software Doesn't Mean You Own It,” Law360 (October 25, 2010)
  • “The Law of Patent Damages: Who Will Have the Final Say?,” Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal (Vol. 22 No. 4, April 2010)
  • “Winnie-the-Pooh: New Limits on the Rights of Authors and Their Heirs to Reclaim Transferred Copyrights,” Client Alert (July 2006)
  • “MGM v. Grokster: The Supreme Court Revisits the Parameters of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement,” Client Alert (August 2005)
  • “The P2P Threat From Your PC,” White Paper (November 2004)
  • “Of Golf and Ghouls: The Prose Style of Justice Scalia,” 9 Legal Writing 71 (2003)
  • Board of Directors, Berkeley Law Alumni Association, 2002-present