Sarah Guske

Partner

sarah.guske@bakerbotts.com

San Francisco

P: +1.415.291.6205 F: +1.415.291.6305
sarahguske

Sarah Guske is a partner in the firm's Intellectual Property group and has significant experience litigating software and electronics patent litigation cases. Clients rely on her to litigate matters in district court and before the PTAB involving a wide variety of technologies, including optical components, telecommunication protocols and systems, MPEG Multimedia data for broadcast, telephonic voice recognition software and graphic chipset design.

Sarah also represents clients in appeals and has served as an Adjunct Professor teaching patent litigation at the University of Colorado and University of Denver. She is an Adjunct Professor at the University of California Hastings School of Law for the 2017-2018 academic year, where she teaches in the IP department.

Related Experience

Representative Litigation Cases

  • Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign Corp. (Northern District of California; Central District of California; PTAB) – litigation counsel for Twilio in patent litigation related to telecommunications technology.
  • Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Northern District of California; PTAB; Federal Circuit) – litigation counsel for Cisco in patent litigation related to MEMs technology.
  • Patent Asset Licensing, LLC v. Bright House Networks, LLC (Middle District of Florida; PTAB) – litigation counsel for Bright House Networks in patent litigation related to telecommunications network technology.
  • Bright House Networks, LLC v. Focal IP (PTAB) – PTAB litigation counsel for Bright House Networks in PTAB litigation related to telecommunications network technology.
  • Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Focal IP (PTAB) – PTAB litigation counsel for Cisco in PTAB litigation related to telecommunications network technology.
  • Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Inc. (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for AT&T in patent litigation related to telecommunications network technology.
  • Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc. (Northern District of California) – litigation and trial counsel for Open Text in patent litigation related to document management and collaboration technology.
  • ZeniMax Media Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Northern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Samsung in copyright infringement, trade secret, and unfair competition case involving VR technology.
  • Labyrinth Optical Technologies LLC v. Oclaro, Inc. (Northern District of California) – litigation counsel for Oclaro in patent litigation related to optics technology.
  • Finisar Corp. v. Oplink Communications Inc. (Northern District of California; Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Oplink in patent litigation related to optical transceiver technology.
  • Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Innolux Corp. (Eastern District of Texas) - trial counsel for Innolux in patent litigation related to computer monitor technology.
  • ACQIS LLC v. IBM Corp. (Eastern District of Texas) - trial counsel for ACQIS in patent litigation related to server technologies.
  • Interactive Systems Worldwide, Inc. v. Mikohn Gaming Corp. et al. (District of Nevada) - litigation counsel for Mikohn Gaming Corp. and STB Holdings, Inc. in patent litigation related to real-time sports betting technologies.
  • Zenith Electronics v. Thomson, Philips Electronics, TTE Technology, Pioneer Electronics (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for Zenith in patent litigation over patents essential for compliance with ATSC Digital Television Standard.
  • Bookham, Inc. v. Unaxis Balzers AG et al. (Northern District of California) - litigation counsel for Bookham in patent litigation related to color wheel technology.
  • HyperRoll Israel, Ltd. v. Hyperion Solutions (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for HyperRoll Israel, Ltd. in a patent litigation against Hyperion Solutions, The technology in this case involves database-management software.
  • HyperRoll, Inc. v. Hyperion Solutions (Northern District of California) - litigation counsel for HyperRoll, Inc. in a declaratory judgment action brought by Hyperion Solutions. The technology in this case involves database-management software.
  • Qualcomm Incorporated v. Nokia Corporation (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent infringement action involving cellular telephony systems and mobile TV applications.
  • International Printer Corp. v. Brother International et al. (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for International Printer in a patent infringement action against twelve manufacturers of networkable multifunction printer and imaging technology.
  • Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Various Defendants (Central District of California; Federal Circuit) - litigation counsel for Katz in a patent infringement action against nine defendants. The technology involves computer telephony and call-center systems.
  • Widevine Technologies, Inc. v. Verimatrix, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for Verimatrix in a patent infringement action involving encryption technology.
  • Widevine Technologies, Inc. v. Verimatrix, Inc. (Western District of Washington) - litigation counsel for Verimatrix in a patent infringement action involving encryption and data stream flow control technology.
  • OPTi Inc. v. nVidia Corp. (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for nVidia in a patent infringement action involving chipset design and operation.
  • OMS Investments, Inc., et al. v. TerraCycle, Inc. (District of New Jersey) - litigation counsel for TerraCycle in trade dress infringement and unfair competition action.

Awards & Community

Recognized as an NLJ Intellectual Property Trailblazer, 2018

Recognized as a Super Lawyer-Rising Star (Thomson Reuters), 2014

News

Insights

Events

Upcoming

IP Counsel Cafe: Palo Alto

On May 6-9, join partner Sarah Guske for IP Counsel Café's Annual Silicon Valley Conference, "Parts Unknown: Global IP in an Increasingly Connected Yet Foreign World."

Recent