Quinn emanuel trial lawyers

Lasher, S. Alex

S. Alex Lasher



S. Alex Lasher is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office.  Described by IAM Patent 1000 as a “rising star,” Mr. Lasher’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation in federal district court, the United States International Trade Commission and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Mr. Lasher has represented complainants, respondents and third parties in more than sixty Section 337 investigations. Mr. Lasher is a member of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association and has been an editor for the Paul J. Luckern summer associate edition of the 337 Reporter.

  Representative Clients

  • The Dow Chemical Company
  • Cree
  • ST Microelectronics
  • RF Micro Devices
  • MediaTek
  • Samsung
  • HTC
  • Motorola Mobility

  Notable Representations

  • Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges (ITC 2016): Representing Sony in a patent-based investigation against Fujifilm.
  • Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products (ITC 2016): Representing United States Steel Corporation against forty Chinese steel manufacturers and distributors in a Section 337 investigation for price fixing, theft of trade secrets by cyber espionage and false designation of origin. The case has been set for two trials in April and August, 2017.
  • Certain Radiotherapy Systems and Treatment Planning Software (ITC 2015): Representing Varian Medical Systems in a patent-based investigation against Elekta AB. Trial was held in June, and the ALJ found a violation in October 2016.
  • Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products, (ITC 2015): Representing Cree in a Section 337 investigation for patent infringement and false advertising against Respondents Feit Electric and Unity Optoelectronics. The case was tried in October 2015, and the ALJ found a violation of Section 337 based both on patent infringement and false advertising. The ALJ also imposed monetary and evidentiary sanctions against respondents for discovery abuse.
  • Certain Opaque Polymers (ITC 2014): Represented Complainants The Dow Chemical Company and Rohm and Haas against Turkish producer Organik Kimya for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation relating to hollow-sphere polymers used in paints. After finding widespread spoliation by respondents leading to sanctions of default and monetary penalties, the Commission found a violation and issued an exclusion order and cease and desist orders in April, 2015.
  • Certain Optical Disk Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, (ITC 2014): Represented Mediatek in a Section 337 investigation brought by Optical Devices, LLC alleging patent infringement. The Commission terminated with a finding of no violation.
  • Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMs Devices”) and Products Containing Same (ITC 2013): Represented ST Microelectronics, Inc. in a Section 337 action against Respondents InvenSense, Inc., Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. and Roku, Inc.  The case settled favorably on the second day of trial.
  • Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits (ITC 2012): Represented RF Micro Devices, HTC and Motorola Mobility in a Section 337 action brought by Peregrine Semiconductor, alleging infringement of five US patents.  Peregrine withdrew its complaint.
  • Certain Audiovisual Components and Products (ITC 2012): Represented MediaTek, Ralink and Funai in a Section 337 action brought by LSI/Agere, alleging infringement of four patents.  The Commission found no violation.
  • Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions (ITC 2012): Represented MediaTek in responding to serial-patent infringement complaints filed by Freescale.
  • Certain Portable Electronic Devices (ITC 2011): Represented HTC in responding to patent infringement litigation brought by Apple against HTC’s smartphones.
  • Certain Mobile Electronic Devices (ITC 2011): Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC in two 337 actions against Apple Inc., involving twelve design and utility patents.
  • Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software (ITC 2011): Representing Motorola Mobility, Inc. in two actions against Apple Inc., involving nine patents. The cases were tried in September and December, 2011.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, and Computers (ITC 2011): Represented a global telecommunications company in high-stakes patent litigation against Apple, which spanned three separate ITC investigations and resulted in an extraordinarily large settlement in the client’s favor.
  • Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof (ITC 2011): Defended a Spanish manufacturer of black powder rifles in patent litigation brought by Smith & Wesson.
  • Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (ITC 2011). Defended a global telecommunications company in a camera-related patent dispute brought by Flashpoint. The case was settled prior to trial.
  • Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (ITC 2010): Represented the most well-known photography company in the world against Apple and RIM at the Commission level following an unfavorable initial determination, obtaining a remand to a new Administrative Law Judge.
  • Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same (ITC 2010): Represented a Taiwanese semiconductor company in seeking relief for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. The respondents filed a consent order agreeing not to import accused products on the eve of trial.
  • Certain Welding Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (ITC 2010): Defended a European welding wire supplier against allegations of infringement. The case was tried in 2010, and the Commission found no infringement and terminated the investigation.
  • Certain Non-Shellfish Derived Glucosamine (ITC 2010): Defended a Chinese health products company accused of patent infringement by Cargill. The investigation was settled favorably very early in the litigation.
  • Certain Catheters, Consoles, and Other Apparatus for Cryosurgery (ITC 2008): Defended a small Canadian medical products company in bet-the-company litigation brought by its market rival CryoCor, Inc., which settled favorably prior to trial. Immediately thereafter, our client was acquired by Medtronic.
  • Certain R-134a Coolant (otherwise known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluroethane) (ITC 2008): Represented a global chemical company in an investigation against Sinochem for infringement of a patented process of producing an ozone-friendly refrigerant. The investigation was settled favorably on appeal.
  • Certain Hard Disk Drives (ITC 2008): Defended a California-based hard disk drive manufacturer in an investigation brought against hard drives and computers that contain them. Complainant withdrew its case prior to trial.
  • Certain 3G Mobile Handsets (ITC 2008): Defended a global telecommunications company in an investigation brought by Interdigital Communications LLC. The ITC found non-infringement of any of InterDigital's patents and terminated the investigation.
  • Certain Nitrile Rubber Gloves (ITC 2008): Obtained a finding of no violation based on invalidity on behalf of a global medical equipment supplier and its affiliates in an investigation regarding medical examination gloves.
  • Certain Mobile Telephone Handsets (ITC 2007): In one of the largest global intellectual property wars ever, we represented a global telecommunications company in multiple cases in the United States, including an I.T.C. action, and coordinated cases in the U.K., France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Holland, and China.  The Administrative Law Judge denied the plaintiff’s request to enjoin our client from importing its handsets into the United States.  It also held that none of the three asserted patents were infringed and that one was invalid under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex.  This provided a complete defense victory—allowing our client to continue importing hundreds of millions of handsets into the United States—and set the stage for a global settlement on the eve of trial in another case in Delaware.
  • Certain NAND Flash Memory (ITC 2005): Represented Hynix in two Section 337 actions against Toshiba.  Both cases settled favorably.
  • Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuits (ITC 2003): Obtained finding of no violation based on invalidity for Carsem in a Section 337 investigation lasting more than seven years.


  • American University 
    (J.D., 2002; M.A., 1998)

  • University of Virginia
    (B.A., 1996)


The District of Columbia Bar; The State Bar of California; United States District Court: District of Columbia; United States Courts of Appeals: Federal Circuit, District of Columbia Circuit

  Prior Associations

  • Alston & Bird:
    • Partner, 2011
    • Associate, 2007-2011

  • Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg:
    • Associate, 2002-2007

Publications and Lectures

  • Speaker, Duff & Phelps IP Value Summit, 2016
  • Speaker, American Conference Institute’s 5th Expert Forum on ITC Litigation and Enforcement: Claim Construction at the ITC, 2013.
  • “Q&A With Quinn Emanuel’s Alex Lasher.”  Law360.  Portfolio Media Inc. (February 27, 2013).
  • "The Fed. Circ. Stance On ITC's 'No Position' Rule." Law360. Portfolio Media Inc. (August 22, 2012).
  • “The Evolution of the Domestic Industry Requirement in Section 337 Investigations Before the United States International Trade Commission” 18 U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L. J. 157-176 (Spring 2010).
  • Speaker, 2010 Intellectual Property Symposium: The Domestic Impact of Intellectual Property in a Global Society, Baltimore Law School, 2010

Professional Activities

  • Member, ITC Trial Lawyers Association:
    • Editor, Section 337 Reporter, Summer Associate Edition
  • Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association:
    • Editor, Federal Circuit Bar Journal
  • Member, AIPLA
  • Member, ABA