Neil P. Sirota

Sector Chair - Technology IP (Firmwide) Partner

neil.sirota@bakerbotts.com

New York

P: +1.212.408.2548 F: +1.212.259.2548
Neil Sirota Photo

Neil Sirota's practice encompasses patent litigation, as well as validity and infringement opinions, patent prosecution and counseling on intellectual property matters such as patent procurement strategies and licensing. He also has experience litigating trademark, trade dress and copyright issues.

Over the course of more than 25 years practicing patent law, Mr. Sirota has developed particular experience representing 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.

Mr. Sirota has litigated a wide array of technologies, including magnetic tape data storage, semiconductor device fabrication, internet-of-things technology, mobile phone antenna designs, e-commerce, 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.
  • AI Automation, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) defended Samsung in patent suit relating to recognizing and performing handwritten calculations.  Received 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.) received 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; received 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; 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; jury verdict of non-infringement.
  • Dell, Inc. v. This Old Store (N.D. Tex.) – represented Dell in suit against unauthorized reseller of Dell computers; 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.) defended Samsung in a patent suit relating to digital content protection and secure financial transactions. Favorable result awarded during claim construction when the court found that all asserted claims are indefinite.
  • 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; received 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; received 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.
  • 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; received 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; multimillion dollar award at jury trial and 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, 2015-2018

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

News

Insights

Events

Recent