Hersh Mehta

Hersh also serves as a trusted advisor for emerging businesses by helping them navigate a wide range of business and legal issues, including licensing, developing, and leveraging intellectual property; forming strategic alliances; and assisting with corporate matters.

Hersh regularly defends and counsels clients in matters involving declared standard-essential patents and fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) issues. Hersh is highly familiar with industry standards across a variety of specialized technologies, including cellular networks (e.g., WCDMA, LTE, LTE-Advanced), wireless local area networks (e.g., IEEE 802.11), web technologies (e.g., HTML5, JSON), cryptography (e.g., X.509), video compression (e.g., MPEG, VP9), and Power over Ethernet (e.g., IEEE 802.3at).

Outside of his intellectual property practice, Hersh is committed to serving the public through his pro bono work, and has successfully represented numerous pro bono clients throughout his career.

• Network-1 v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (E.D. Tex. 2017): Trial counsel for defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) in a weeklong patent infringement jury trial involving a patent that was alleged to be essential to the Power over Ethernet standard and licensed throughout the industry for more than $100 million. The jury rendered a complete defense verdict in HPE’s favor, finding every asserted claim of the patent not infringed and invalid. The invalidity verdict followed two reexaminations and full review by the PTAB during an inter partes review (IPR).
• TPL v. ZTE (N.D. Cal. 2017): Represented defendant ZTE in a three-patent infringement case involving microprocessor clocking technology. After filing a motion to dismiss based on patent indefiniteness, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed two asserted patents. As to the remaining patent, the court found no infringement and entered summary judgment in ZTE’s favor.
• ZTE v. Evolved Wireless (PTAB 2017): IPR counsel for petitioner ZTE in connection with IPRs of four patents declared essential to the 4G LTE standard. In final written decisions, the board found every challenged claim to be unpatentable.
• ChriMar v. AMX (E.D. Tex., PTAB 2016): Trial counsel and IPR counsel for defendant AMX in a four-patent infringement litigation involving Power over Ethernet technology. The board instituted IPRs on every petition filed. Following the institutions, the parties settled the week before the jury trial.
• InterDigital v. ZTE (D. Del. 2015): Trial counsel for defendant ZTE in a weeklong patent infringement jury trial involving 4G LTE technology. The jury rendered a complete defense verdict in ZTE’s favor, finding no infringement of any asserted patent claim.
• InterDigital v. ZTE (ITC, 337-TA-868): Trial and appeal counsel for respondent ZTE in an ITC investigation involving 3G and 4G cellular technology. The ITC found no violation on the basis that no valid patent claim was infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
• TPL v. ZTE (ITC, 337-TA-853): Trial counsel for respondent ZTE in an ITC investigation involving microprocessor clocking technology. The ITC found no violation on the basis that no patent claim was infringed. The complainant did not appeal the ITC’s final determination.
• InterDigital v. ZTE (ITC, 337-TA-800): Trial and appeal counsel for respondent ZTE in an ITC investigation involving 3G cellular technology. The ITC found no violation on the basis that no valid patent claim was infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
• 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.

Other Significant Cases

• Hewlett Packard Enterprise v. ChriMar (E.D. Mich.): Litigation counsel for HPE, HP Inc., and Aruba Networks, Inc. in a seven-patent declaratory judgment action involving Power over Ethernet technology. The case is pending.
• Fundamental Innovation v. ZTE (N.D. Tex.): Litigation counsel for defendant ZTE in a five-patent infringement case involving USB battery charging technology. The case is pending.
• Evolved Wireless v. ZTE (D. Del.): Litigation counsel for defendant ZTE in a patent infringement case involving five declared-essential 4G LTE patents. The case is pending.
• Steelcase, Inc. v. Haskell Office LLC (E.D. Mich.): Litigation counsel for plaintiff Steelcase, Inc. in an eight-patent infringement case involving educational furniture. The case is pending.
• Hypermedia Navigation v. Yahoo! (N.D. Cal.): Litigation counsel for Yahoo! in an eight-patent infringement case involving hypermedia web technology. The parties settled.
• Draeger Medical v. Atom Medical (ITC, 337-TA-896): Trial counsel for respondent Atom in an ITC investigation involving infant incubators. The parties settled.