Howard G. Pollack is a Principal of Fish & Richardson’s Silicon Valley office. Mr. Pollack joined the firm in 1994 after serving as judicial clerk to the Honorable H. Robert Mayer, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1992-1994). His litigation experience is primarily in the electronics, semiconductor and computer software fields and he has represented major clients in both patent and trademark infringement cases relating to those areas of technology. He has represented clients in patent litigation matters in several U.S. District Courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. International Trade Commission.
“The Admissibility and Utility of Expert Legal Testimony in Patent Litigation,” 32 IDEA 361 (1992).
“Is the Method of Doing Business Rejection Bankrupt?” 3 Fed. Cir. Bar J. 73 (1993) (with E. Robert Yoches).
“The Gordian Algorithm: An Attempt to Untangle the International Dilemma Over the Protection of Computer Software,” 22 Law & Pol’y Int’l Bus. 815 (1991).
“Minimizing the Risk of a Finding of Willful Infringement Through Opinions of Counsel” (1991).
SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco – Representing SRI International, Inc. in the District of Delaware in enforcing its Network Intrusion Detection patents against Cisco. In May 2016, the jury found Cisco willfully infringed SRI’s patents, awarding $23.7 million in damages. On Appeal, liability and the jury damages were affirmed but the District Court’s award of enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees were vacated and remanded for further consideration.
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild and System General – Represented Power Integrations as co-lead counsel in the Northern District of California in asserting infringement claims related to Power Integrations’ prior successful suit in the U.S. ITC against System General. On March 4, 2014 a Jury returned a verdict in favor of Power Integrations, finding Fairchild to have willfully infringed and induced infringement of both Power Integrations’ patents-in-suit. The jury also found that Power Integrations had not infringed Fairchild’s counter-claim patent. The District Court also granted Summary Judgment that Power Integrations did not infringe a second patent Fairchild had asserted in its counterclaim. In December 2015, a jury awarded Power Integrations nearly $140 million in damages. This case settled as part of an overall agreement with ON Semiconductor Corp. when acquired Fairchild. The settlement included on paying Power Integrations $175 million.
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor – Represented Power Integrations, Inc. as co-lead counsel in bringing a patent infringement suit in the District of Delaware. At issue were four Power Integrations patents relating to circuits and high voltage transistor structures asserted against various Fairchild chips used in power conversion applications. After trial, the jury found all four patents willfully infringed. After a second trial, a second jury found all asserted claims not invalid. After a bench trial, the Court found Fairchild to have willfully infringed. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded the case in the District of Delaware for further proceedings on damages and willful infringement. The District Court reinstated the willfulness verdict. This case settled favorably for Power Integrations as part of an overall settlement with ON Semiconductor Corp., as noted above.
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor and System General [PI v. Fairchild II] – Represented Power Integrations, Inc. as co-lead counsel in asserting additional infringement claims against Fairchild and its subsidiary System General for their continued infringement of Power Integrations’ proprietary power supply controller technology. After a liability trial, Fairchild was found to infringe three Power Integrations patents and the infringed claims were held not invalid. The Court granted an injunction against further infringement. The liability verdicts were affirmed on appeal. This case settled favorably for Power Integrations as part of an overall settlement with ON Semiconductor Corp., as noted above.
Power Integrations, Inc. adv. Fairchild and System General [PI V. Fairchild VI] – Represented Power Integrations, Inc. as co-lead counsel in the District of Delaware in defending against claims of infringement initiated by Fairchild. Power Integrations has asserted counterclaims in this matter. In June of 2015, a jury returned a mixed verdict, partially in favor of both parties. This case settled favorably for Power Integrations as part of an overall settlement with ON Semiconductor Corp., as noted above.
Power Integrations, Inc. v. ON Semiconductor Corp. – Represented Power Integrations, Inc. in multiple lawsuits in California and Delaware adverse to ON Semiconductor. Technology involved integrated circuit controllers for power conversion applications. The cases are presently in the discovery phase. The cases settled favorably for Power Integrations as part of an overall settlement with ON Semiconductor Corp., as noted above.
Honeywell, Inc. v. Sandel Avionics – Successfully represented Sandel as co-lead counsel in securing a jury verdict of non-infringement on all remaining claims asserted by Honeywell stemming from its original complaint filed against Sandel in 2002 asserting infringement of five Honeywell patents. Other of the asserted patent claims were previously held invalid on summary judgment and the invalidity findings were affirmed on appeal. The patents-in-suit relate to FAA mandated Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (“TAWS”).
Honeywell, Inc. v. Sandel Avionics, Inc. et al. (Sandel II) – Successfully represented Sandel as lead trial counsel in securing a jury verdict of noninfringement in a second case brought by Honeywell against Sandel in the District of Delaware. The patent at issue in this case was also related to Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems for aircraft but was directed to older technology concerning the pre-cursor “Ground Proximity Warning System.” Honeywell asserted this patent against Sandel mid-way through the first lawsuit involving five other TAWS patents and the claim resulted in a follow-on suit.
Power Integrations, Inc. v. BCD Semiconductor – Represented Power Integrations as co-lead counsel in the District of Delaware asserting infringement by BCD of three Power Integrations patents. Technology at issue relates to power supply controller integrated circuits. This matter settled with the Defendant agreeing to a consent judgment against further infringement.
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. – Successfully represented Power Integrations, Inc. in a five patent case relating to various aspects of chips used in high-voltage AC-to-DC power conversion. Primarily responsible for preparation of damages case which, at trial, resulted in the jury awarding Power Integrations $32.3 million in damages which, at the time, was the largest patent damages awards in Delaware history.
In re Certain Power Supply Controllers and Products Containing Same – Successfully represented Power Integrations, Inc. as co-lead counsel in an investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission concerning infringement of Power Integrations, Inc. patents by products of Respondent, System General Corporation of Taiwan. The ITC found infringement and entered an order excluding the accused products and certain downstream products incorporating them from the U.S. Successfully represented Power Integrations on appeal and secured a summary affirmance of the ITC decision.
Cadence et al adv. Bhandari and Vanguard – Successfully represented Cadence as co-lead counsel in defending against claims for patent infringement in D. Texas and N.D. Cal. Technology at issue relates to electronic design automation and verification tools. Secured summary judgment of non-infringement on declaratory judgment and dismissal of counterclaims.
SRI International, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation and Internet Security Systems, Inc. – Successfully represented SRI Intentional, Inc. as a co-lead counsel in the District of Delaware in securing a jury verdict of infringement and patent validity against both defendants Symantec and Internet Security Systems, Inc. Technology at issue relates to computer network intrusion detection. This matter settled while on remand for a damages trial.
SRI International, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. – Represented SRI International, Inc. SRI International, Inc. in a declaratory judgment matter brought by Fortinet, Inc. in the Northern District of California over infringement of SRI’s patents. The dispute related to SRI patents previously litigated successfully and the technology relates to computer network intrusion detection. This matter settled.
SRI International, Inc. adv. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. – Represented SRI International, Inc. in a declaratory judgment matter brought by Check Point in the Northern District of California over infringement of SRI’s patents. The dispute related to SRI patents previously litigated successfully and the technology relates to computer network intrusion detection. This matter settled.
SRI International, Inc. adv. Dell and SecureWorks – Representing SRI International, Inc. in the District of Delaware in enforcing its network intrusion detection patents against Dell and its SecureWorks subsidiary related to their Managed Security Series (MSS). The case settled.
ADE Corp. adv. KLA-Tencor, Corp. – Successfully represented ADE Corp. against KLA-Tencor’s claims of patent infringement in District of Delaware. Technology at issue concerned semiconductor wafer inspection instruments and related data analysis software. Won a jury verdict that all asserted claims of KLA’s remaining patent were invalid on multiple grounds. Succeeded in having claims to two other patents dismissed on summary judgment prior to trial and KLA-Tencor withdrew its claims on a fourth patent just prior to trial.
Google v. Northestern University and Jarg, Inc. – Defended Google against claims for patent infringement brought in the Eastern District of Texas. Technology at issue techniques for searching large, distributed databases. This matter settled.
Nest Labs, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc. – Represented Nest Labs, Inc. in defense of claims of infringement of seven Honeywell patents related to thermostats. The case settled after IPR proceedings were requested by Nest Labs.
SunPower Corp. v. SunLink – Represented SunPower Corp. as co-lead counsel in the Northern District of California in asserting infringement of two SunPower patents by SunLink. Technology at issue relates to lightweight structures for mounting arrays of solar panels on flat commercial rooftops with minimal or no roofing penetrations. This matter settled.
SunPower Corp. v. PanelClaw, Inc. – Represented SunPower Corp. in the District of Delaware asserting patents related to solar panel commercial mounting systems. This matter settled.
Thales Airborne Systems, et al. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. – Represented Universal as lead counsel in defense of patent infringement claims brought by Thales in the District of Delaware. The two patents at issue in the case relate to Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems for aircraft. This matter settled.
PLS-Pacific Laser Systems v. TLZ, Inc. dba Toolz – Successfully represented Pacific Laser as lead counsel in asserting its patent for a multi-beam laser alignment tool. Case settled prior to trial with defendant taking a license and agreeing to redesign the accused product.
PLS-Pacific Laser Systems v. Robotoolz et al – Represented PLS as lead counsel in breach of contract and patent infringement suit in the Northern District of California. Technology at issue relates to laser alignment tools. This matter settled.
“Best Lawyers – Litigation, Intellectual Property,” Best Lawyers in America, 2020, 2021.
“Acritas Star – independently rated lawyer,” 2018,2019.
“Top Rated Intellectual Property Litigation Attorney,” Northern California Super Lawyers, 2006-2019.
“His knowledge of the patent system and the knowledge of our technology. He really understands our product, and it makes him better able to litigate and defend anything, or pursue when someone else is infringing. ”
— Client Testimonial
J.D. cum laude, Georgetown University Law Center (1992)
B.S., General Engineering, Stanford University (1988)
A.B. with honors, Drama, Stanford University (1988)
- California 1992
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, The Honorable Haldane Robert Mayer, 1992 - 1994
October 25, 2019
Fish & Richardson Obtains $175 Million Settlement for Power Integrations After 15 Years of Hard-Fought Litigation
November 20, 2018
Fish & Richardson Wins Two Jury Verdicts in Successive Weeks for Power Integrations
June 5, 2017
Fish Wins $56.9 Million Judgment for SRI International Against Cisco Systems; $23.7 Million Jury Verdict Doubled and $8 Million in Attorneys’ Fees Awarded
May 16, 2016
Fish & Richardson Wins $23.7 Million Jury Verdict for R&D Institute
December 28, 2015
Fish & Richardson Wins Nearly $140 Million Damages Jury Verdict for Power Integrations
March 31, 2015
Fish's Howard Pollack Featured in National Law Journal's "Was 2014 the Twilight of the Patent Trolls?"
April 13th, 2012
The 15th Annual And Justice For All Awards
July 14, 2014
Fish Win for Power Integrations Named a “Top IP Verdict of 2014” by Law360
January 21, 2009
Power Integrations Litigation Victory Named as One of the Top 100 Verdicts of 2006
December 5, 2008
Fish Wins Jury Trial Victory for Sandel
November 19, 2007
Appeals Court Upholds ITC Decision in Favor of Power Integrations