Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
 

Background

Linhong Zhang is an experienced trial and litigation attorney who has been named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in Patent Litigation for 2014-2017. Mr. Zhang tries intellectual property cases and offers strategic counseling to clients. He has successfully litigated high technology cases across the country, including in Delaware, Texas, California, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

With a background in computer science and finance, Mr. Zhang serves his clients by getting to know their business, developing creative and effective solutions, and conducting litigations with efficiency. He has handled cases involving 2G, 3G, and 4G mobile standards, computer power management, flash memory, online sales systems, web browsers and applications, Internet billing methods, advertising display systems, video compression, graphical user interfaces, network monitoring, and software customization.

Before becoming an attorney, Mr. Zhang was a Programmer Analyst at the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). At Freddie Mac, Mr. Zhang developed enterprise application software for loan origination, servicing, and pooling. Mr. Zhang’s software development experience includes programming in C, C++, Java, JavaScript, Perl, and SQL. Mr. Zhang also has experience working with TCP/IP, UDP, J2EE, and relational databases.

Education

J.D., Vanderbilt University Law School 2007
Law and Business Certificate
Associate Editor, Vanderbilt Law Review


M.S., Johns Hopkins University 2004
Computer Science


B.S., University of Maryland 2002
Finance, Computer Science

Admissions

  • Delaware 2007
  • District of Columbia 2008
  • New York 2009
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Languages

  • English
  • Mandarin Chinese

Other Distinctions

Named a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers (2014-2017).

District Court

Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al. – (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Huawei in patent infringement involving telephony and VoIP technologies. Settled favorably.

Cambrian Science Corp. v. Cox Communications, Inc. et al.– (C.D. Cal.) Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of defendants in a patent infringement action relating to optical networking technology. Also obtained a finding of exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285 and an award of attorneys’ fees.

Monec Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. et al. – (D. Del.) – Defended Samsung in a patent infringement litigation relating to mobile communication devices. Settled favorably.

Walker Digital, LLC v. Expedia, Inc. (D. Del.) – Represented Expedia in multiple patent infringement actions related to online sales systems.  Obtained dismissal for lack of standing.

Eolas Technologies LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Adobe in a patent trial relating to web browser and application technology. The case was tried to a jury verdict in February 2011 and the jury found Eolas’ patents invalid.

Microsoft Corp. v. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. (D. Del.) – Represented Microsoft in multi-patent declaratory judgment case involving power management technology. Favorable settlement following significant summary judgment wins.

SFA Systems, LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Representing Barnes & Noble and J&R Electronics in patent litigation involving electronic sales systems. Settled favorably.

Netcraft v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al. (D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff Netcraft in patent litigation involving Internet billing methods.  Settled favorably.

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Office Media Network, Inc. (D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff Gannett on patents related to advertising display systems.  Settled favorably after Markman victory.

Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. Cal.) – Represented Microsoft in a patent trial relating to video compression, graphical user interfaces, network monitoring, software customization, and other technologies.  The case was tried to a jury verdict in June 2008 and the jury found no infringement of MPT’s patent.

Section 337 Proceedings

Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same – 337-TA-972 – Representing Nautilus Hyosung against Diebold in patent litigation concerning technology associated with ATMs.  Case pending.

Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof I, 337-TA-944 – Represented Respondent Arista Networks in patent infringement case. Case pending.

Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same – 337-TA-916 – Represented Respondents Macronix and Macronix’s customers in a patent infringement action relating to non-volatile memory technology.  Settled favorably.

Certain Electronic Devices, Including Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Tablet Computers, Media Players, and Televisions, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-862) – Represented Samsung against patent infringement claims brought by Ericsson involving patents declared essential to the 2G, 3G and 4G LTE mobile standards. Settled favorably.

Post-Grant PTO Proceedings

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00978, IPR2016-00308 – Representing petitioner. Cases pending.

Corporate Litigation

LAMPERS v. Pyott et al. (Del. Ch.) – Represented Allergan, Inc. in defense of a shareholder derivative class action related to BOTOX®.

Patent Litigation

Walker Digital, LLC v. Expedia, Inc. (D. Del.) – Representing Expedia in multiple patent infringement actions related to online sales systems.

Eolas Technologies LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Adobe in a patent trial relating to web browser and application technology. The case was tried to a jury verdict in February 2011 and the jury found Eolas’s patents invalid.

SFA Systems, LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Representing Barnes & Noble and J&R Electronics in patent litigation involving electronic sales systems. Settled favorably.

Netcraft v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al. (D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff Netcraft in patent litigation involving Internet billing methods.  Settled favorably.

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Office Media Network, Inc. (D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff Gannett on patents related to advertising display systems.  Settled favorably after Markman victory.

Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. Cal.) – Represented Microsoft in a patent trial relating to video compression, graphical user interfaces, network monitoring, software customization, and other technologies.  The case was tried to a jury verdict in June 2008 and the jury found no infringement of MPT’s patent.

Corporate Litigation

LAMPERS v. Pyott et al. (Del. Ch.) – Represented Allergan, Inc. in defense of a shareholder derivative class action related to BOTOX®.

What's trending with Linhong