Neil P. Sirota

Sector Chair - Technology IP (Firmwide) Partner

[email protected]

New York

P: +1.212.408.2548
F: +1.212.259.2548
Neil Sirota Photo

Neil Sirota is the firm's Technology Sector Chair in Intellectual Property.

Over the course of nearly 30 years practicing patent law, Mr. Sirota has represented clients in high technology patent litigation matters before federal district courts nationwide, including multi-district litigation, as well as the International Trade Commission and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Sirota's litigation practice also encompasses contested matters in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including inter partes reviews and ex parte reexaminations. He also has litigated trade secret, trademark, trade dress and copyright issues.

In addition, Mr. Sirota provides validity and infringement opinions, patent prosecution services, and counseling on intellectual property matters such as patent procurement strategies and licensing.

Mr. Sirota's experience encompasses a wide array of technologies, including magnetic tape data storage, semiconductor device fabrication, internet-of-things technology, mobile phone antenna designs, electronic payment systems, mobile phone user interface technology, digital rights management, computer system data transfer, power transistor devices, battery chargers, liquid crystal displays, cable television transmission systems, internet communications, roofing shingles, faucet designs, gas springs, and electromagnetic interference protection devices.

Mr. Sirota taught intellectual property law for several years as an adjunct professor in the graduate design management program at Pratt Institute. Prior to entering law school, he worked at Hazeltine Corporation, where he designed radio frequency circuits for various applications, primarily for use in the testing of receiver/transmitter aircraft identification systems.

Related Experience

  • ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (S.D.N.Y.) represented ACTV in patent suit relating to internet/television convergence; case settled before trial.
  • AGIS Software Development LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex. and U.S.P.T.O.) representing Samsung in patent suit and inter partes review and ex parte reexam proceedings relating to mobile device location-tracking technologies; granted stay of district court suit based on pending PTO proceedings.
  • AI Automation, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) defended Samsung in patent suit relating to recognizing and performing handwritten calculations. Granted early summary judgment of non-infringement.
  • American Bio Medica Corp. v. DiPro Diagnostic Products, Inc. (D. Del.) defended DiPro in design patent and trade dress infringement suit relating to diagnostic drug test kit; received transfer to S.D. Cal. and case settled shortly thereafter.
  • Apeldyn Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (D. Del.) granted summary judgment of both non-infringement and invalidity for Samsung in patent infringement suit relating to liquid crystal display driving system and method.
  • Anvik Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (S.D.N.Y.) defended Samsung in patent infringement suit relating to scanning microlithography; granted summary judgment of patent invalidity for failure to disclose best mode.
  • Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (D. Del.) defended Samsung in patent infringement suit relating to vertical alignment mode liquid crystal display devices; received summary judgment of invalidity for failure to disclose best mode on one of two asserted patents, as well as summary judgment of non-infringement for most asserted claims in second patent; case settled before trial.
  • ContentGuard Holdings, Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.) defended Samsung in patent infringement suit relating to digital rights management technologies; received jury verdict of non-infringement.
  • Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (E.D. Tex. and U.S.P.T.O.) represented Samsung in patent infringement suit and inter partes review and ex parte review proceedings relating to streaming and video interface technologies; granted stay of district court suit based on PTO proceedings; settled after stay.
  • Dell, Inc. v. This Old Store (N.D. Tex.) – represented Dell in suit against unauthorized reseller of Dell computers; case settled before trial.
  • Displeigh LLC. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (N.D. Tex.) – defended Samsung in patent infringement suit relating to digital photograph displays; case dismissed by plaintiff with prejudice after invalidity contentions served.
  • Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) defended Samsung in patent infringement suit relating to mobile phone antenna technology.
  • Grecia v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (S.D.N.Y., W.D. Tex., and E.D. Pa.) defended Samsung in multiple patent suits relating to digital content protection and secure financial transactions. Favorable results obtained in one case during claim construction when the court found that all asserted claims are indefinite and on a motion to dismiss in another case, with both judgements affirmed on appeal; third case settled quickly and favorably.
  • Honeywell International, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd. (D. Del.) represented Hitachi in patent infringement suit relating to liquid crystal display backlight arrangement; case settled after depositions.
  • In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1012) represented Fujifilm in ITC Investigation of Sony's infringement of Fujifilm patents related to magnetic tape data storage technologies; granted limited exclusion order.
  • In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1058) represented Fujifilm in ITC Investigation filed by Sony related to magnetic tape data storage technologies.
  • Intellectual Properties Development Corp. v. Tele-Communications, Inc./ AT&T Broadband LLC (S.D.N.Y.) defended TCI/ AT&T and related companies in separate actions (multi-district litigation) in a patent infringement suit involving hybrid fiber coax cable television systems; obtained summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement on all asserted claims; Federal Circuit affirmed on non-infringement grounds.
  • Koninklijke KPN B.V. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. and U.S.P.T.O.) represented Samsung and subsidiary SmartThings in patent infringement suit and inter partes reviews related to multiple technologies: email networks, telecommunication network congestion, turbo coding, and internet of things; granted summary judgment of non-infringement on one patent; case settled.
  • Masco Corp. v. Price Pfister (E.D. Va.) represented Masco d/b/a Delta Faucet in suit involving cross claims of design patent and trade dress infringement and other state law causes of action; obtained jury verdict in Masco’s favor; Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.
  • Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. North American Science Associates, Inc. (D. Minn.) defended NAMSA in patent suit relating to medical instrument sterilization techniques; case settled before trial.
  • Negotiated Data Solutions, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) represented Samsung in patent suit relating to universal serial bus (USB) data transfer; case settled.
  • Patentmarks Communications LLC v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (D. Del.) represented Samsung in patent suit relating to multiple path wireless telecommunications technologies; case settled.
  • Plasma Physics Corp. (E.D.N.Y.) represented Plasma Physics in multiple suits against semiconductor chip manufacturers asserting patents relating to semiconductor processing using plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD); cases settled prior to trial.
  • Power Mosfet Technologies, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies A.G. (E.D. Tex.) defended Infineon and related companies in a patent infringement suit relating to power transistor structures; prevailed at a bench trial; Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.
  • Richardson v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) represented Samsung in patent suit related to photo animation effects; case settled prior to trial.
  • SVV Technology Innovations Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (W.D. Tex.) defended Samsung in a patent infringement suit relating to optical collectors for solar energy applications alleged to have been used in backlight units for televisions and computer monitors; settled prior to claim construction.
  • Theis v. Northern Telecom, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) defended Northern Telecom in patent suit relating to voicemail technology; favorable verdict at trial; Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.
  • Tulip Computers International B.V. v. Dell Computer Corp. (D. Del.) defended Dell in patent infringement case involving a patent directed to personal computer form factors; granted summary judgment of non-infringement on half the products at issue prior to trial; case settled shortly before jury deliberation.
  • Unifi Scientific Batteries v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex. and U.S.P.T.O.) represented Samsung in patent infringement action and inter partes review involving battery charging technology; granted dismissal of district court case and patent owner's disclaimer of all challenged claims in the IPR.
  • Ushijima v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (W.D. Tex.) represented Samsung in defense against allegations of patent infringement relating to liquid crystal display backlight inverter circuit technology; jury verdict of non-infringement.
  • Vanguard Products Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp. (D. Conn. and U.S.P.T.O.) represented Vanguard in suit against competitor for infringement of patents relating to electromagnetic interference gaskets; injunction granted; Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal; defended post-trial ex parte reexamination challenge by defendant.
  • Varia Holdings LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. and U.S.P.T.O.) represented Samsung in defense of patent infringement suit relating to mobile device input technology; shortly after filing a petition for inter partes review of the patent in suit, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the district court litigation.
  • Whirlpool Corp. v. LG Electronics (I.T.C. and D. Del.) represented Whirlpool in the International Trade Commission and in the District of Delaware in a patent infringement dispute involving indoor ice making systems for refrigerators and other refrigerator technologies.

Awards & Community

Recognized in Intellectual Asset Management's IAM Patent 1000 - The World's Leading Patent Practitioners, 2015-2020

Recognized as a New York Super Lawyer (Thomson Reuters), 2018-2020

News

results Page of

Thought Leadership

results Page of

Events

Recent

results Page of