Todd G. Miller is a Principal in the Southern California office of Fish & Richardson P.C. For the past fifteen years, Todd has helped clients in the medical device field to achieve their business, patent litigation and related intellectual property objectives. He represents innovative, technology driven clients whose products improve the lives of patients with renal, cardiac, orthopedic and other medical needs. As a licensed patent attorney, Todd has particular expertise in the coordination of post-grant review and litigation strategies. Todd also has significant experience in preparing complex patent licensing agreements. Todd brings a refined and pragmatic approach to litigation case management, which permits him to create teams that efficiently run complex litigation matters and deliver exceptional results for his clients.
JD, University of San Diego School of Law 1992
Member, San Diego Law Review. cum laude
BS, San Diego State University 1987
United States Patent and Trademark Office 1998
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Numerous federal courts
Memberships & Affiliations
Graduate of National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA) courses in Instructor Training and many aspects of litigation practice. Extern law clerk to the Honorable David R. Thompson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
St. Jude Medical, et al. v. Volcano Corp. (D. Del): Successfully defended Volcano Corp. in multi-case patent litigation resulting in favorable global “walk-away” settlement and covenant not to sue. The technology at issue related to pressure sensing guide wires used to quantify a patient’s need for cardiac stenting. At trial, a Delaware jury found two St. Jude patents invalid, two others not infringed; a fifth patent was declared not infringed by the court on the eve of trial. In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit dismissed St. Jude’s appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision NOT to institute interpartes review of a Volcano patents.
NuVasive, Inc. adv. various Medtronic entities (S.D. Cal.): Successfully asserted a NuVasive patent and defended NuVasive in multi-patent infringement litigation. That verdict remains on appeal. Subsequent litigation between the parties has been stayed pending resolution of many requests for interpartes review.
Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Successfully defended Fresenius against Baxter’s allegation that Fresenius infringed nine patents relating to peritoneal dialysis systems. Before trial, Baxter dismissed seven of its asserted patents. At trial, a jury found the remaining two patents not infringed.
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): After assuming the defense of this case from another firm, successfully defended Fresenius against Baxter’s allegation that Fresenius infringed four patents relating to hemodialysis systems. At trial, a jury invalidated all asserted claim of the four patents-in-suit. The district court subsequently overturned the jury’s verdict as to one of the four patents. The Federal Circuit then affirmed the cancellation by the Patent Office of all claims of that patent leading the Federal Circuit en banc to deem moot a subsequent damage determination. The Supreme Court denied review. The net result was that Fresenius owed no money to Baxter.
Intuitive Surgical v. Vital Care, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Successfully represented Intuitive Surgical in patent and trademark infringement action involving components of Intuitive’s surgical robotic system. Obtained consent judgment precluding further sales of these components and ensuring the continued safety of daVinci surgical patients.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Computer Motion, Inc. (D. Del. and C.D. Cal.). Represented Intuitive Surgical in multi-case patent infringement litigation relating to surgical robotic systems. The jury verdict that Computer Motion infringed Intuitive’s patent set the stage for Intuitive’s acquisition of Computer Motion.
Brookhill-Wilk v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Successfully defended Intuitive Surgical against patent infringement claims directed to Intuitive’s surgical robotic system. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Intuitive.