Roger Denning is a trial lawyer specializing in patent infringement cases across a broad range of technologies. As lead counsel, Denning has successfully represented some of the world’s best-known companies in their most important patent cases, both as patent holders and accused infringers. In addition to trying over a dozen cases to jury verdict throughout the country — particularly in the patent-heavy dockets in California, Texas, and Delaware — he also has tried many cases to the bench, including Hatch-Waxman cases and Section 337 cases before the International Trade Commission.
Denning also has advised clients in inter partes review proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office. An engineer by training, he has experience in a wide variety of technologies, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, computer software, semiconductors, network interfaces, encryption and security, satellite communications, and golf ball design. In addition, Denning has tried to verdict a number of general commercial cases, including in the areas of unfair competition, product liability and False Claims Act.
Denning joined Fish & Richardson in 2003, after beginning his career with Brown & Bain in Phoenix. He has been the Managing Principal of Fish & Richardson’s Southern California office since 2009, he served as the firm’s nationwide hiring principal from 2008 to 2014, and he was elected to the firm’s seven-member management committee in 2013, a position in which he still serves.
Denning was born and raised in rural Kansas, where he met his wife, Michele. They have been married for 20 years and have three children.
In the Matter of Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof – Int’l Trade Comm’n Investigation No. 337-TA-890 (I.T.C. and S.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for ResMed in ITC investigation and related district court case against Chinese manufacturer BMC relating to seven ResMed patents on sleep apnea masks and flow generators. Six-day hearing conducted in April 2014; Initial determination expected August 2014.
In the Matter of Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof – Int’l Trade Comm’n Investigation No. 337-TA-879 (I.T.C. and C.D. Cal.) – Representing ResMed in ITC investigation and related district court case against Taiwanese manufacturer APEX relating to seven ResMed patents on sleep apnea masks and flow generators. ITC case resulted in consent order barring APEX from importing, selling or importing for sale any infringing products; hearing on Apex’s request for advisory opinion regarding certain design-around products conducted in March 2014.
In re Fresenius GranuFlo/NaturaLyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation – (MDL No. 2428) – Representing Fresenius in product liability litigation relating to its GranuFlo dialysate product in federal court and California state court.
Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al. – No. 6:11-cv-441 (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Allergan in five-day bench trial in July 2013 in Hatch-Waxman case in which four defendants sought to manufacture and sell a generic version of Allergan’s LUMIGAN® .01% (bimatoprost) glaucoma treatment, protected by five patents. Court (J. Schneider) found all asserted claims valid and infringed and granted Allergan a permanent injunction keeping the generics off the market. Published at 2013 WL 139350 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2013) and 2013 WL 1314188 (E.D. Tex. March 28, 2013)
Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. et al. – No. 1:10-cv-681 (M.D.N.C.) – Represented Duke and Allergan in eight-day bench trial in November 2012 in Hatch-Waxman case in which three defendants sought to manufacture and sell a generic version of Allergan’s LATISSE® (bimatoprost) treatment for hypotrichosis, protected by two patents. Court (J. Eagles) found all asserted claims valid and infringed and granted Allergan a permanent injunction keeping the generics off the market. Published at 2013 WL 286251 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2013) and 2013 WL 1750757 (M.D.N.C. April 23, 2013).
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. – Civ. No. 03-0597 (D. Ariz.) – Represented Gore on remand from Federal Circuit relating to issues of willfulness and related impact on original trial.
RPost Holdings, Inc. v. Zix Corp. – No. 2:11-cv-00064 (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Zix in patent litigation relating to RPost’s assertions that Zix’s ZixMail e-mail encryption system infringed RPost patent relating to e-mail receipt confirmation. Case settled favorably after claim construction.
Zix Corp. v. Echoworx Corp. – No. 3:12-cv-1102 (N.D. Tex.) – Represented Zix in patent litigation asserting that Echoworx’s product infringe two Zix patents relating to e-mail security and encryption. Case settled favorably.
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. – No. 03–440S. (D.R.I.) – Represented Microsoft in jury trial in March 2012 on damages issues relating to patent on software registration technology; case settled in second week of trial. This case, along with the Lucent case below, is regularly cited among the most important damages cases in patent law in recent years. Published at 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 640 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.R.I. 2009); 290 Fed. Appx. 337 (Fed. Cir. 2008); and 447 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D.R.I. 2006).
Applied Signal Technologies, Inc. v. ViaSat, et al. – No. 09-cv-02180 (N.D. Cal.) – Represented ViaSat in patent litigation relating to five patents on satellite communications and cancellation technology. Case settled favorably.
Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al. – No. 2:09-cv-097 (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Allergan in bench trial in August 2011 in Hatch-Waxman case in which four defendants sought to manufacture and sell a generic version of Allergan’s COMBIGAN® (brimonidine tartrate, timolol maleate) glaucoma treatment, protected by four patents. Court (J. Ward) found all asserted claims valid and infringed and granted Allergan a permanent injunction. Federal Circuit affirmed with regard to at least one patent, keeping the generics off the market. Published at — F.3d —-, 2013 WL 1810852 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2013); 818 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Tex. 2011); 2011 WL 3794364 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25 2011); 2011 WL 2563238 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2011); and 2011 WL 1599049 (E.D. Tex. April 27, 2011).
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. et al. — No. 07-CV-2000 H (S.D. Cal.). Represented Microsoft in jury trial in July 2011 on remand from the Federal Circuit relating to damages on user-interface technology patent; original jury had awarded over $356 million; second jury awarded $70 million; Court (J. Huff) granted post-trial JMOL reducing damages to $26 million. Case settled shortly thereafter. This case, along with the Uniloc case above, is regularly cited among the most important damages cases in patent law in recent years. Published at 2011 WL 5513225 (S.D. Cal. 2011); 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009); and 580 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (S.D. Cal. 2008).
Allergan, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc. et al. – No. 09-333-SLR (D. Del.) – Represented Allergan in bench trial in February 2011 in Hatch-Waxman case in which three defendants sought to manufacture and sell a generic version of Allergan’s LUMIGAN® 0.03% (bimatoprost) glaucoma treatment, protected by two patents. Court (J. Robinson) found all asserted claims valid and infringed and granted permanent injunction keeping the generics off the market. Affirmed by Federal Circuit. Published at 501 Fed. Appx. 965, 2013 WL 314446 (Fed. Cir. 2013); and 808 F. Supp. 2d 715 (D. Del. 2011)
Microsoft Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. — No. 06-CV-0684 H (S.D. Cal.). Lead counsel for Microsoft in 7-week jury trial in April-June 2008 in patent case relating to video compression technology. Plaintiff sought more than $400 million in damages. Jury found that none of Microsoft’s products infringe and awarded no damages. Named, with the case below, one of the “Top 10 Litigation Wins of 2008″ by IP Law and Business. Published at 2008 WL 2872738 (S.D. Cal. 2008).
Microsoft Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. — No. 07-CV-2000 H (S.D. Cal.). Defended Microsoft in 6-week jury trial in February-April 2008 in patent case relating to four patents on video compression, video displays, stylus-based input devices and user interfaces. Plaintiff sought more than $2 billion in damages. Jury found Lucent’s video compression patent invalid; found that Microsoft’s products do not infringe the video compression or video display patents, and awarded reduced damages on the other two patents, which were further reduced after appeal. Named, with the case above, one of the “Top 10 Litigation Wins of 2008″ by IP Law and Business. Published at 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009); and 580 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (S.D. Cal. 2008).
Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co. — No. 06-91 (D. Del.). Represented Callaway Golf in asserting that Acushnet’s popular Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls infringe four Callaway Golf patents on golf ball construction. Tried to jury verdict in December 2007, then again in March 2010, with intervening appeal to the Federal Circuit. Case ultimately settled. Published at 523 F. Supp. 2d 388 (D. Del. 2007); 576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
United States ex rel. Gonzalez v. Fresenius Medical Care – No. 07-CV-247 (W.D. Tex.). Defended Fresenius Medical Care in qui tam action involving seven counts under the False Claims Act. Tried to jury verdict in month-long trial in El Paso, Texas in February 2010. Jury found for Fresenius on all claims; affirmed by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Published at 748 F. Supp. 2d 95 (W.D. Tex. 2010); 761 F. Supp. 2d 442 (W.D. Tex. 2010); and 689 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2012)
Avid Identification Sys., Inc. v. Philips Semiconductors Inc. — No. 2:04-cv-183 (E.D. Tex.). Represented Avid in two-week jury trial asserting patent infringement (3 patents) and Lanham Act claims relating to RFID transponders and readers. Tried to jury verdict in May 2006. Obtained mid-trial settlement from two defendants and jury verdict against remaining defendants, including Lanham Act damages of $6 million. Published at 2006 WL 278265 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2006); 2006 WL 278265 (E.D. Tex. February 3, 2006); 2007 WL 2901415 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2007); 603 F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Stonebreaker v. Medical Management Int’l, Inc. — No. GIC 830293 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). Represented Stonebreaker and Avid Identification Systems in jury trial asserting unfair competition under California Code Section 17200 and the Lanham Act relating to RFID technology. Tried to jury in July 2005. Obtained mid-trial settlement that included recovery of damages and a stipulated permanent injunction against the defendant.
Coppola v. Powerware Corp. — CV 03-03667 (C.D. Cal.). Defended Powerware in patent infringement case relating to uninterruptible power supplies for computers and computer networks. Case settled prior to Markman hearing.
Maxim Integrated Products adv. Microelectronics Modules Corp. — No. 01 C 0272 (E.D. Wi.). Defended Maxim in patent infringement case relating to circuit design for switching voltage regulators. Case settled after favorable Markman ruling.
Lemelson Medical, Educational & Research Foundation v. Intel Corp. — No. 98-1413 (D. Ariz.). Defended Intel in patent infringement case relating to semiconductor manufacturing and machine vision and bar-coding technology. Case settled after favorable Markman ruling. Published at 2002 WL 31323299, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1172 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2002); 2002 WL 453212, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1905 (D. Ariz. Feb. 26, 2002); 1999 WL 813940, 52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1122 (D. Ariz. Aug. 18, 1999).
Maxim Integrated Products adv. Sipex Corp. — 99 CF 10096 RCL (D. Mass.). Represented Maxim as plaintiff in infringement case asserting patent relating to automatic shutdown circuitry for RS-232 interface devices. Case settled after favorable Markman ruling. Published at 2002 WL 1046699 (D. Mass. May 24, 2002).
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. adv. EMI Group North America, Inc. — No. Civ.A. 98-350 (D. Del.). Defended Cypress in infringement case relating to two patents on semiconductor manufacturing technology. Tried to jury verdict in 1999. Jury verdict of non-infringement of all claims and invalidity based on non-enablement, lack of utility, anticipation and obviousness; judgment affirmed by Federal Circuit. Published at 268 F.2d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001); 104 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D. Del. 2000); 68 F. Supp. 2d 421 (D. Del. 1999).
October 20, 2016
Daily Transcript Names Fish & Richardson Principals Juanita Brooks, Roger Denning Among 100 Influential Leaders in San Diego
September 17, 2014
Fish & Richardson Announces 40 Attorneys Included in The Best Lawyers in America® 2015
January 4, 2013
Fish Partner Roger Denning named as one of San Diego’s Most Influential Leaders
May 6, 2011
Lawyers using technology to their benefit
October 11, 2010
Fish & Richardson’s Growing San Diego Bio-pharma Team
August 31, 2010
Fish Receives Distinguished Pro Bono Law Firm of the Year Award
July 17, 2009
New MP at Fish
July 17, 2009
Denning to lead Fish's Southern California office