Partner

Phone: 571.384.2478

Email: bkoide@dbllawyers.com

Office: Vienna

Brian is a first-chair litigation attorney and business advisor with over twenty years of experience focusing on intellectual property disputes. He is a registered patent attorney with an undergraduate engineering degree. His cases have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Financial Times, the San Jose Mercury News, Politico, Law360, and Patently-O. Brian has worked on cases involving legal issues of national importance, including two patent infringement cases resulting in landmark rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Formerly a partner with an international Am Law 100 law firm, he has obtained successful litigation outcomes as lead counsel in trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), federal district court trials, appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Section 337 investigations before the United States International Trade Commission (ITC).

Brian has appeared as counsel of record in more than 80 intellectual property cases. In the patent arena, he has dealt with a wide range of technologies, including network equipment, autonomous driving, consumer products, encryption, smart phones, mobile apps, wireless protocols, graphic user interfaces, consumer electronics, digital cameras, digital printers, scanners, electronic payment systems, on-line auctions, digital-image processing, and speech compression. His cases often involve standard-essential patents (SEPs). His current and former clients include Alcoa, AT&T, Avaya, Bendix, BMW, eBay, Kodak, Marriott, PayPal, Ricoh, Sprint, Toyota, Yamaha, and ZURU.

Brian received his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center and his B.S. in Engineering from the University of California, San Diego. Brian is admitted to practice in Virginia, California, and the District of Columbia and registered to practice before the USPTO. He is admitted before the United States Courts of Appeal for the Federal and Fourth Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas, Eastern District of Virginia, District of Maryland, and the Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California. Prior to entering the legal field, Brian worked as an aerospace engineer. Brian was selected as a Fellow for the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD), a landmark program created to identify, train, and advance the next generation of leaders in the legal profession.

  • Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1997
  • University of California, San Diego, B.S. Engineering (Structural), 1990
  • Virginia
  • California
  • District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Courts: E.D. Tex., E.D. Va., C.D. Cal., N.D. Cal., S.D. Cal., D. Md.
  • U.S. Courts of Appeal: Federal Circuit and Fourth Circuit
  • U.S. Patent & Trademark Office: Registered Patent Attorney
  • Fellow, Leadership Council of Legal Diversity
  • Member, Japanese American Bar Association
  • Winning Strategies for Negotiating IP Indemnification, IP Counsel Café Conference (Apr. 10, 2010)
  • Patent Reform & Trolling 101, Crowell & Moring Webinar (Jul. 23, 2014)
  • “Patent Reform & Trolling 101,” SFIA Thought Leadership Webinar, Sports & Fitness Industry Association (May 5, 2015).
  • Patent Damages Law: Are Changes Needed: Post Judgment Royalties, Intellectual Property Owners Association, Damages & Injunctions Committee Conference (May 27, 2015)
  • Litigation Forecast 2014—Current Developments in Patent Litigation: The Impact of Inter Partes Review, Crowell & Moring Webinar (July 23, 2014).
  • 2013 Fellow, Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
  • Significant Outcomes
    • Represented one of the world’s largest toy manufacturers, ZURU, and the patent owner-licensor, Tinnus, in a multi-forum intellectual property dispute involving 12 district court actions, 8 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) trials, and 11 Federal Circuit appeals resulting in the following:
      • Won a jury verdict of willful infringement resulting in final judgment of $30 million including enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 369 F. Supp. 3d 704 (E.D. Tex. 2019) (lead counsel for post-trial motions / co-lead counsel for trial).
      • Served as lead counsel in a Post-Grant Review (PGR) trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that reversed the Board’s prior institution decision on validity finding a “abundant and compelling” amount of objective evidence and the that the testimony of petitioner’s technical expert witness was “inconsistent” and “not credible.” Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises LLC, PGR2016-0030, PGR 2016-0031 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2018); see also PGR 2017-0015; PGR2015-0018.
      • Obtained an undefeated 6-0 record before the Federal Circuit in appeals argued. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 846 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., Nos. 16-1410, 17-1175, 17-1726, 17-1760, 17-1811, and 17-2194.
      • Awarded three preliminary injunctions in three separate cases against three separate accused products. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., No. 615CV00551RWSJDL, 2015 WL 11089480 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2015), aff’d, 846 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., No. 6:16-CV-33-RWS-JDL, 2016 WL 9045962 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016); Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., No. 6:17-CV-00170-RWS, 2018 WL 3455543 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2018).
    • Won summary judgment of no patent infringement as lead counsel for Sprint, which resulted in dismissal of case without payment in case where patent owner sought hundreds of millions in damages. Tech. Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG, 800 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Md. 2011), aff’d sub nom. Tech. Patents LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd., 700 F.3d 482 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
  • On behalf Kodak in case brought by a non-practicing entity (NPE), severed and stayed case against Kodak customers and transferred case against Kodak to Kodak’s home forum, resulting in favorable settlement without payment after Federal Circuit dismissed appeal. Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 657 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
    • Disqualified lead trial and appellate counsel, Quinn Emanuel, in patent infringement suit involving prepaid technology on behalf of intervenor Nextel. Freedom Wireless, Inc. v. Bos. Commc’ns Grp., Inc., No. 2006-1020, 2006 WL 8071423 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2006).
    • Obtained favorable resolution of case in a multi-forum dispute pending before the USITC and district courts.  ChriMar Systems Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 4:13-cv-01300 (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 22, 2013); ChriMar Systems Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01050 (D. Del. filed Oct. 31, 2011).
  • Served as trial counsel for AT&T in case that resulted in landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. AT & T v. Microsoft Corp, No. 01 CIV.4872(WHP), 2004 WL 406640 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2004), aff’d sub nom. AT & T Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 414 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005), rev’d, 550 U.S. 437 (2007).
  • Served as co-lead counsel for Marriott in 11 patent infringement suits brought by non-practicing entity (NPE) campaigns. g., Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC v Marriott International Inc, No. 2:13-cv-00304 (E.D. Tex. filed Apr. 24, 2013); MacroSolve, Inc. v. Marriott International, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00076 (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 17, 2012); Pragmatus Telecom LLC v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00620 (E.D. Tex. filed Nov. 15, 2011); Variant, Inc. v. AMERCO, No. 2:11-cv-00422 (E.D. Tex. filed Sept. 15, 2011); Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Pandigital Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed Sept. 15, 2011); CyberFone Systems LLC v. American Airlines Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed Sept. 15, 2011); Execware LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00836 (D. Del. filed Sept. 15, 2011); Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc, No. 8:12-cv-00522   (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 5, 2012).

 

  • Other Cases (Listed in Reverse Chronology)
    • ZURU LLC v. Lego Systems Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00131 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 7, 2019) (represented declaratory judgment plaintiff in case involving trademark, trade dress, copyright, and design patents in relation to interlocking construction toy bricks and figures).
    • Todd Dean v. Cecilia Cortes, No. 2:18-cv-02335, (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 22, 2018) (represented trademark owner involving studio photography equipment).
    • ZURU Inc. v. Ontel Products Corporation, No. 6:18-cv-00132 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 20, 2018) (represented design patent holder in case involving interlocking construction toys).
    • TheBrain Technologies, LP v. Financial Modeling Specialists, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00598 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 16, 2017) (represented accused infringer in patent in patent case relating to graphical operating system).
    • Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Appledeals, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-05472 (N.D. Cal. filed May 21, 2017) (represented accused infringer in trademark and copyright action).
    • 9380671 Canada Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 1:15-cv-10036    (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 24, 2015).
    • Motile Optics, LLC v. Yamaha Corporation of America, No. 6:15-cv-01069      (E.D. Tex. filed Nov. 27, 2015).
    • Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. Alcoa Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01424 (E.D. Tex. filed Aug. 21, 2015).
    • Avaya Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc., No. 14-1782 (Fed. Cir. Filed Aug. 29, 2014).
    • Open Network Solutions Inc. v. Yamaha Corporation of America, No. 1:14-cv-00702 (D. Del. filed Jun. 3, 2014).
    • Presqriber, LLC v. QuadraMed Corporation, No. 6:14-cv-0046 (E.D. Tex. filed May 8, 2014).
    • Presqriber, LLC v. AO Capital Partners LLC d/b/a Prognosis Innovation Healthcare, No. 6:14-cv-00440 (E.D. Tex. filed May 8, 2014).
    • Penovia LLC v. Yamaha Corporation of America, No. 2:14-cv-00241 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 14, 2014).
    • Penovia LLC v. Acer America Corporation, No. 2:14-cv-00161 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 3, 2014).
    • Qommerce Systems, LLC v. Weight Watchers International, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00126 (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 17, 2014).
    • Sapphire Dolphin LLC v. Yamaha Corporation of America, No. 1:14-cv-00193 (D. Del. filed Feb. 12, 2014).
    • Yamaha Corporation v. Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation, No. 8:13-cv-02018 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 31, 2013).
    • Penovia LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00425 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2013).
    • Clear With Computers LLC v. Alcoa Inc, No. 6:13-cv-00170 (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 19, 2013).
    • Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Avaya Inc., No. 6:13-cv-00070 (E.D. Tex. filed Jan. 17, 2013).
    • CyberFone Systems v. CNN Interactive Group, No. 12-1673 (Fed. Cir. filed Sept. 21, 2012).
    • Ganas, LLC v. Dell Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00324 (E.D. Tex. filed Jun. 12, 2012).
    • Technology Patents v. Deutsche Telecom, No. 11-1612 (Fed. Cir. filed Sept. 27, 2011).
    • Network-1 Technologies, Inc v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., 6:11-cv-00492 (E.D. Tex. filed Sept. 15, 2011).
    • Technology Patents v. Deutsche Telecom, No. 11-1581 (Fed. Cir. filed Sept. 14, 2011).
    • TQP Development, LLC v. CHS, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00397 (E.D. Tex. filed Sept. 9, 2011).
    • Sony Corporation v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01422 (S.D. Cal. filed Jun. 28, 2011).
    • Variant Holdings LLC v. Z Resorts LLC, No. 2:11-cv-00290 (E.D. Tex. filed Jun. 6, 2011).
    • Elen IP LLC v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00140 (W.D. Wash. Filed Jan. 25, 2011).
    • Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Company, No. 6:10-cv-06523 (W.D.N.Y.     filed Sept. 14, 2010).
    • Lexmark International, Inc. v. Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-00564 (S.D. Ohio filed Aug. 20, 2010).
    • Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Brother International Corp., No. 2:10-cv-03175 (E.D. Pa. filed Jun. 30, 2010).
    • WABCO Holdings Inc. v. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC, No. 2:2009cv03179 (D.N.J. filed Jun. 30, 2009).
    • Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00177 (N.D. Ohio filed Jan. 26, 2009).
    • Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC v. Haldex Brake Products Corporation, No. 1:09-cv-00176 (N.D. Ohio filed Jan. 26, 2009).
    • Whetstone Electronics, LLC v. Epson America,  Inc., No. 6:08-cv-00317 (E.D. Tex. filed Aug. 6, 2008).
    • In re: Halftone Color Separations, No. 8:08-ml-01926 (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 11, 2008).
    • Broadcom v. Qualcomm, No. 08-1262 (Fed. Cir. filed Mar. 27, 2008).
    • Flashpoint Technology Inc. v. Aiptek Inc., No. 1:08-cv-00139 (D. Del. filed Mar. 7, 2008).
    • Flashpoint Technology Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 1:08-cv-00140 (D. Del. filed Mar. 7, 2008).
    • Broadcom v. Qualcomm, No. 08-1199 (Fed. Cir. filed Feb. 15, 2008).
    • Tesseron, Ltd. v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc., No.  1:07-cv-02947 (N.D. Ohio filed Sept. 26, 2007).
    • FotoMedia Technologies, LLC v. Alltel Communications, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00256 (E.D. Tex. filed Jun. 18, 2007).
    • GTX Corporation v. Kofax Image Products Inc, No. 6:2006cv00244 (E.D. Tex. filed May 31, 2006).
    • R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company v. Quark Inc., No. 1:2006cv00032 (D. Del. filed Jan. 17, 2006).
    • Hakim v. Cannon Avent Group, No. 05-1398 (Fed. Cir. filed May 24, 2005).
    • F & G Research, Inc. v. BenQ Corporation, No.  0:2005cv60785 (S.D. Fl. filed May 16, 2005).
    • Rushing v. Nexpress Solutions, Inc., No. 6:2005cv06243 (W.D.N.Y. filed May 11, 2005).
    • 180s Inc. v. JC Penney, No. 05-1147 (Fed. Cir. filed Dec. 20, 2004).
    • 180S, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., No. 1:2004cv02991 (D. Md. filed Sept. 17, 2004).
    • Schnare v. Ziessow, No. 1:2003cv00366 (E.D. Va. Filed Mar. 24, 203).
    • Adams v. Synerject LLC, No. 3:2003cv00191 (E.D. Va. Filed Feb. 26, 2003).
    • EcoLab v. EnviroChem, No. 00-622 (Fed. Cir. filed Jun. 19, 2000).
    • Gorgonz Grp Inc, et al v. Marmon Grp Inc, No. 1:2000cv02992 (N.D. Ill. Filed May 17, 2000).
    • Chemtron, Inc. v. Pariser Industries, No. 2:1999cv01281 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 13, 1999).
    • Chemtron, Inc. v. Diamond Chemical, No. 2:1999cv00302 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 1, 1999).
    • Chemtron Inc v. Mt Hood Chemical, No. 3:1998cv0057 (D. Or. filed May 5, 1998).