Bas de Blank,

a partner in the Silicon Valley office, is a member of Orrick's Intellectual Property Group and co-head of the firm's International Trade Commission practice. Mr. de Blank has focused on complex patent litigation and represented clients in almost a dozen investigations before the International Trade Commission (ITC), as well as numerous cases in Federal District Courts. His engineering background has prepared him to represent clients' interests in software, telecommunications, signal processing and semiconductor design and processing. The following are samples of his notable cases.

U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) cases:

In the Matter of Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-724, 2011). Mr. de Blank represented respondent Apple Inc. before the ITC concerning image compression technology. After a hearing and briefing, the full Commission determined there was no violation of any asserted patent by Apple.
In the Matter of Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (IV) (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-649, 2008). Mr. de Blank represented respondents Siliconware Precision Industries, Ltd. and Siliconware USA in patent litigation before the ITC concerning semiconductor packaging technology.
In the Matter of Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III) (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-630, 2008). Mr. de Blank represented respondents Acer Inc., Nanya Technology Corp., and Powership Semiconductor Corp. in patent litigation before the International ITC concerning semiconductor packaging technology.
In the Matter of Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-602, 2007). Mr. de Blank represented respondents SiRF Technology, Inc., E-TEN Corp., Pharos Science & Applications, Inc., MiTAC International Corp., and Mio Technology Ltd., USA in patent litigation before the ITC concerning Global Locate, Inc.'s allegations that the respondents' global positioning satellite (GPS) devices infringe claims of six Global Locate patents.
In the Matter of Certain GPS Chips, Associated Software and Systems, and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-596, 2007). Mr. de Blank represented complainant SiRF Technology, Inc. in patent litigation before the ITC. SiRF has asserted that Global Locate's GPS devices infringe four of SiRF's patents.
In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-470, 2002). Mr. de Blank represented Mosel Vitelic, Inc. in litigation before the ITC involving Hitachi's alleged infringement of Mosel's semiconductor patents. Litigation settled favorably before trial.
In the Matter of Certain HSP Modems, Software and Hardware Components Thereof, and Product Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-439, 2000). Mr. de Blank represented PCTEL, Inc. in litigation before the ITC involving PCTEL's assertion that ESS Technology, Inc. infringed two PCTEL patents concerning Host Signal Processing modems. After trial, PCTEL's patents were found valid and enforceable and that ESS's products infringed.
In the Matter of Certain Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices, Microprocessors, and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-431, 2000). Mr. de Blank represented Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi Semiconductor (America), Inc. Mr. de Blank represented Hitachi in litigation before the ITC involving Rambus Inc.'s assertion that Hitachi infringed two Rambus patents. The matter settled while discovery was underway.
In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-414, 1999). Mr. de Blank was a counsel for Mosel Vitelic, Inc. in litigation before the ITC involving Mosel's alleged infringement of four Micron Technology semiconductor processing patents. After trial, the three remaining and asserted Micron patents were declared not infringed, invalid over prior art and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

Patent Cases in Federal Courts:

Oasis Research LLC v. EMC Corp. Mr. de Blank represented EMC Corporation in a patent infringement action brought by Oasis Research, LLC. After a week long trial, an Eastern District of Texas jury found that all of the patents asserted against EMC were invalid.
Brocade v. A10 Networks. Mr. de Blank currently represents Brocade in a patent infringement, trade secrets misappropriation and copyright theft action in the Northern District of California. After the jury awarded Brocade over $60 million in damages, the judge entered an injunction prohibiting A10 from continuing to infringe Brocade's patents or use Brocade's trade secrets.
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. Mr. de Blank represented Fairchild and System General in patent litigation in the district of Delaware. Power Integrations, Inc. has alleged that certain of Fairchild's Off-Line Conversion Integrated Circuits infringe four Power Integrations' patents. Fairchild and System General have alleged that certain Power Integrations products infringe four System General patents.
Collaboration Properties, Inc. v. Tandberg, Inc. and Tandberg ASA. Mr. de Blank represented Tandberg, Inc. and Tandberg ASA in several patent infringement disputes related to videoconferencing technologies.
Siliconix, Inc. v. Alpha and Omega Semiconductor, Inc. Mr. de Blank represented AOS in patent litigation in which Siliconix, Inc. alleged that AOS's Power MOSFET devices infringed Siliconix's patents. The case settled after the court construed the asserted claim.
IXYS Corp. v. Advanced Power Technologies. Mr. de Blank successfully defended APT in a patent infringement action brought by IXYS Corporation. IXYS alleged that APT's Power MOSFET devices infringed IXYS' patents. The Court granted APT's motions for summary judgment finding the IXYS patents both invalid and not infringed.
InterTrust Technologies v. Microsoft Corporation. Mr. de Blank represented Microsoft in litigation concerning eleven patents that InterTrust asserted covered Digital Rights Management (DRM) software.
Mosel Vitelic Corp. v. Micron Technology, Inc. Mr. de Blank represented Mosel in litigation before the Delaware district court involving Mosel's alleged infringement of Micron Technology's semiconductor processing patents and Micron's alleged infringement of Mosel's patents. Extensive press reports promoted that the case was settled favorably for Mosel on the first day of trial.