Hersh Mehta

Partner

Hersh Mehta represents clients in intellectual property litigations and transactions throughout the United States. A patent attorney with an electrical engineering degree, Hersh has served as lead counsel in the U.S. District Courts, International Trade Commission, and Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Hersh is skilled with industry standards, standard essential patents, and related competition law questions. His work has involved such technologies as cellular networks (3G, 4G, and 5G), cryptography, Internet protocols, light-emitting diodes, local area networks (Bluetooth and Wi-Fi), Power over Ethernet, and video compression.

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.