Quincy Lu

Quincy Lu is of counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s Seattle office.  His practice focuses on patent litigation, with an emphasis on post-grant proceedings, having appeared in over 150 proceedings on behalf of both petitioners and patent owners. His practice also includes appeals before the Federal Circuit.  Quincy represents companies and institutions in various industries, including the cellular technology, social networking, lithium-ion battery, network security and semiconductor, sectors. He has practiced in front of the PTAB, the International Trade Commission, various federal district courts, and several U.S. Courts of Appeals.

Representative matters on behalf of post-grant petitioners:

• Kia Corp. v. Emerging Automotive LLC: Represented Kia Corp. in challenging four patents directed to remote unlocking and ignition software. Successfully cancelled all claims across multiple IPR and ex parte reexamination proceedings.
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.: Represented Life Spine on appeal of an IPR proceeding handled by a different firm. Successfully argued to the Federal Circuit that the Board’s claim construction was incorrect, resulting in the cancellation of all claims of a patent directed to spinal implants.
• PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games, Inc.: Represented Playrix, one of the largest mobile game developers, in four IPR proceedings challenging patents directed to interactive in-game objects. Successfully cancelled all claims in four patents, which Patent Owner did not appeal.

Representative matters on behalf of post-grant patent owners:

• Insta360 v. GoPro, Inc.: Represented GoPro in six IPR proceedings seeking invalidity of five of GoPro’s image stabilization and horizon leveling patents.  Following a full trial, the Board upheld at least one asserted claim from each patent, including survival of all claims for three of the five patents.
• NJOY, Inc. v. JUUL Labs, Inc.: Represented JUUL Labs against competitor NJOY’s IPR challenges of five patents directed to the design of vaping devices. Four of the IPR petitions were denied institution, and following a full trial and hearing, the Board upheld all claims of the fifth patent. The successful defense of JUUL’s patents led to an exclusion order in the parallel ITC investigation.
• Bank of America, N.A. v. Nant Holdings IP, LLC: Represented Nant Holdings in six IPR proceedings brought by Bank of America challenging patents directed to image detection algorithms. After two of the IPR petitions were denied institution, the Board upheld all claims of the remaining patents after a full trial. We successfully defended the Board’s decision on appeal.
• Apple, Inc. v. California Institute of Technology: Successfully represented CalTech in eight IPR proceedings brought by Apple. Following a full trial, the Board agreed to uphold all claims of all patents directed to error-correction codes used in data transmissions, finding that Petitioner failed to establish a motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success. At the Federal Circuit, we achieved a summary affirmance of the Board’s decisions.

Representative District Court and ITC matters:

• Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.: Represented ATL in bringing patent claims against its competitor CosMX, and defending against anti-trust counterclaims. The patents were directed to the design and chemistry of lithium-ion batteries. Following a trial in the Eastern District of Texas, the jury found CosMX liable for infringement and a running royalty, and rejected CosMX’s anti-trust claims. This was the first time an Eastern Texas jury found patent infringement in a lawsuit between two Chinese companies. The result led to a favorable worldwide settlement for ATL.
• Certain Video Security Equipment (No. 337-TA-1281): Represented Verkada, Inc. defending against an ITC complaint of patent infringement brought by Motorola Solutions, Inc. The patents were directed to security cameras using machine learning image and facial detection. Following a full hearing and briefing, the APJ found that Verkada did not infringe any of the asserted patents.
• Certain Activity Tracking Devices (No. 337-TA-963): Represented Fitbit, Inc. in an ITC proceeding brought by its competitor Jawbone seeking an exclusion order based on patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. The patents were directed to the design and heartrate detection of wearable activity trackers. On summary judgment, the APJ agreed that all patents lacked ineligibility under Section 101. Following a full hearing and briefing, the APJ denied the trade secret misappropriation claims.
• Civolution B.V. v. Doremi Labs, Inc.: Represented Doremi Labs as defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit in the Central District of California. The patents were directed to real-time watermarking of films. We successfully achieved a favorable claim construction that resulted in summary judgment of no literal infringement. This led to a favorable settlement of the remaining claims before trial.