Morgan Lewis

Hersh Mehta

Partner

Hersh Mehta focuses on intellectual property litigation, counseling, and procurement. As a registered patent attorney with an electrical engineering degree, Hersh has represented clients in complex litigations throughout the United States, and has served as lead counsel in the International Trade Commission (ITC), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and federal district courts. Hersh is especially skilled with industry standards, standard essential patents (SEPs), and related fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) questions on wireless, networking, and web technologies. He has successfully litigated and tried numerous cases on cellular networks, local area networks, cryptography, video compression, and Power over Ethernet.

Selected Representations

  • Chrimar v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (N.D. Cal., E.D. Mich., PTAB): Serving as HPE’s lead litigation and IPR counsel in a seven-patent litigation involving Power over Ethernet technology. In California, the Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in HPE’s favor.
  • Network-1 v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (E.D. Tex., Fed. Cir.): Serving as HPE’s trial and appellate counsel. Network-1 sued over a dozen companies for selling Power over Ethernet products. Every company but HPE settled. Facing $100 million damages demand, HPE tried its case to an East Texas jury and obtained a complete defense verdict, with the jury finding every asserted patent claim not infringed and invalid. The invalidity verdict followed two reexaminations and full review by the PTAB during an inter partes review.
  • Lighting Science Group v. General Electric (ITC, D. Del., S.D.N.Y.): Serving as GE’s litigation counsel in three ITC investigations and two district court actions involving assertions of three patents and unfair competition allegations directed to light emitting diode technology.
  • Blackbird v. Uber (D. Del.): Serving as Uber’s litigation counsel in a patent litigation involving route guidance software.
  • Route Guidance Systems v. Uber (D. Del.): Serving as Uber’s litigation counsel in a patent litigation involving route guidance software.
  • Parity Networks v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (E.D. Tex., PTAB): Served as HPE’s lead litigation counsel in a six-patent litigation involving network switching technologies. HPE filed IPR petitions against all six patents and served Parity with a dispositive motion, forcing Parity to dismiss the case.
  • TPL v. ZTE (ITC, N.D. Cal., Fed. Cir.): Served as ZTE’s litigation and appellate counsel in a three-patent case involving microprocessor clocking technology. The ITC found no violation on the basis that no patent claim was infringed. In the district court, TPL dropped two patents after we filed a motion to dismiss based on patent indefiniteness. As to the remaining patent, the court found no infringement and entered summary judgment in ZTE’s favor. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • Evolved Wireless v. ZTE (D. Del., PTAB): Served as ZTE’s litigation and IPR counsel in a four-patent litigation involving patents declared essential to the 4G LTE standard. In final written decisions, the PTAB found every challenged claim to be unpatentable.
  • InterDigital v. ZTE (ITC, D. Del., Fed. Cir.): Served as ZTE’s trial and appellate counsel in two ITC investigations and two related district court actions involving 3G and 4G technologies. In each ITC investigation, the ITC found no violation on the basis that no valid patent claim was infringed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. And in a week-long jury trial, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in ZTE’s favor, finding no infringement of any asserted patent claim.
  • Fundamental Innovation v. ZTE (N.D. Tex.): Served as ZTE’s litigation counsel in a five-patent infringement case involving USB battery charging technology.
  • Chrimar v. AMX (E.D. Tex., PTAB): Served as AMX’s trial and IPR counsel in a four-patent litigation involving Power over Ethernet technology. The PTAB instituted IPRs on every petition filed. Following the institutions, the parties settled the week before the East Texas jury trial.
  • Ditec v. WobbleWorks (PTAB): Served as WobbleWorks’ IPR counsel in defending against an IPR petition filed by Ditec. The PTAB denied institution in WobbleWorks’ favor.
  • Wingard v. Kia (N.D. Ill., W.D. Wis., S.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., PTAB): Represented Kia and several Kia dealerships as defendants in patent infringement cases throughout the country. Hersh also represented Kia as a petitioner in an IPR against the asserted patent. Every case was dismissed and the PTAB canceled the challenged claims of the asserted patent.
  • Vestcom v. ID Images (N.D. Ill.): Served as Vestcom’s lead litigation counsel in a patent infringement action involving labeling technologies.
  • Autel v. DJI (ITC): Served as DJI’s litigation counsel in an ITC investigation involving unmanned aerial vehicle technology.
  • Wave Linx v. Polycom (D. Del.): Served as Polycom’s litigation counsel in a patent litigation involving telephone switching technology.
  • Chrimar v. Polycom (W.D. Tex.): Served as Polycom’s litigation counsel in a patent litigation involving Power over Ethernet technology.
  • Steelcase v. Haskell Office (E.D. Mich.): Served as Steelcase’s litigation counsel in an eight-patent infringement case involving educational furniture.
  • Hypermedia Navigation v. Yahoo! (N.D. Cal.): Served as Yahoo!’s litigation counsel in an eight-patent infringement case involving hypermedia web technology.
  • Draeger Medical v. Atom Medical (ITC): Served as Atom’s trial counsel in an ITC investigation involving infant incubators.

Education

  • DePaul University College of Law, 2011, J.D.
  • Kettering University, 2007, B.S., Electrical Engineering, cum laude

Admissions

  • Illinois
  • US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • US District Court for the District of Delaware
  • US District Court for the Northern District of California
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • US District Court for the Western District of Michigan
  • US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • US District Court for the Southern District of Texas
  • US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
  • US Patent and Trademark Office

Awards and Affiliations

Member, Practice Group of the Year, Intellectual Property, Law360 (2019)

Member, Litigation Department of the Year–Intellectual Property, The American Lawyer (2019)

Recommended, Intellectual property: Patents: licensing, The Legal 500 US (2019)

Recommended, Intellectual property: Patents: litigation (full coverage), The Legal 500 US (2019)

Recommended, Intellectual property: Patents: prosecution (including re-examination and post-grant proceedings), The Legal 500 US (2019)

Member, Intellectual Property Law Section, American Bar Association

Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association

Member, Indian American Bar Association

Member, Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago

News