Karan Jhurani has a multi-faceted practice at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent prosecution and counseling, post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and complex patent litigation.
Karan's significant experience in all areas of patent law has equipped him to provide a full range of patent services to clients while developing and executing sound legal strategies that consider every aspect of intellectual property protection. Karan works with clients to define what a "win" looks like and then diligently and meticulously goes and gets those wins, whether that means obtaining patent protection at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for a critical invention, litigating in court to prevent competitors or third parties from encroaching upon clients' inventions, or leading a focused attack at the PTAB that is geared toward neutralizing and eliminating third-party patents that are asserted against clients.
Karan has significant experience in developing and managing patent portfolios, performing due diligence, and providing strategic IP counseling to a range of clients, from early-stage companies to industry leaders. Karan has been entrusted by several clients to manage all or a portion of their patent portfolios and to help develop strong patent assets that provide both offensive and defensive value to the client. Notably, Karan currently manages portfolios for clients innovating in the e-commerce, fintech, and sporting goods industries, and has a particular affinity for machine learning, encryption, and security-based technologies.
At the PTAB, Karan has successfully represented both patent owners and petitioners in post-grant proceedings. Karan has substantial experience in all major aspects of post-grant proceedings, from petition drafting to conducting depositions to arguing at oral hearings. Karan recently secured victories for a client in the digital analytics space that resulted in invalidation of all claims of multiple patents asserted by a competitor. Karan’s litigation practice focuses on representing clients in actions filed in U.S. District Courts across the country and at the U.S. International Trade Commission. In one notable matter, Karan was involved in a closely watched ITC patent infringement case — part of a massive, high-stakes global litigation — for client Carl Zeiss AG and its customer ASML Netherlands BV against Nikon. Karan was the key attorney on that case, responsible for two patents that ultimately resulted in a determination of infringement that excluded several Nikon digital cameras from the U.S.
Through his interdisciplinary practice, Karan has extensive experience with a wide range of products and technologies, including:
Technologies leveraging machine learning techniques (e.g., deployment of neural networks for sequential tasks, reinforcement learning)
Encryption and cryptography-based technologies
Digital image and video processing technology
Business intelligence and advanced analytics
Mobile applications and security
Sporting goods design (including development and deployment of impact mitigating materials and structures)
Manufacturing and industrial management systems
In addition to his IP practice, Karan devotes a significant amount of time to diversity issues, including in his former role as co-chair of the firm's Allyship Committee and the Diversity Advisory Committee. Karan also invests his time in pro bono matters. He is currently involved in a litigation matter on behalf of a father and son who are suing the federal government over claims associated with the prior U.S. administration's "separate at the border" policy.
When he is not working, Karan spends his time with his beautiful wife, Sunaina, and keeping up with his 5- and 3-year-old sons. And when the wife and boys allow it, Karan also enjoys working out at CrossFit and playing golf.
Uniloc 2017, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (C.D. Cal.): Counsel for Microsoft in a patent dispute relating to DRM and antivirus technologies.
Eighth Street Solutions, LLC v. McAfee, LLC (E.D. Tex. 2021) (Gilstrap, J.): Counsel for McAfee in a patent dispute relating to antivirus technologies.
Looksmart Group, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2019) (Tigar, J.): Counsel for Microsoft in a patent dispute concerning search engines.
Tivo Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (E.D. Tex. 2015) (Gilstrap, J): Counsel for Samsung in a patent infringement dispute concerning video processing in mobile devices and DVR set-top boxes.
Abstrax, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2014) (Gilstrap, J.): Counsel for Hewlett-Packard in a patent infringement dispute concerning assembly instruction generating software.
American Radionic Company, Inc. v. Packard Inc. et al. (M.D. Fla. 2014) (Dalton, J.): Counsel for American Radionic in a patent infringement dispute concerning motor run capacitors for HVAC applications.
U.S. International Trade Commission
Certain Lithography Machines and Systems, and Components Thereof (ITC 2019): Counsel for Carl Zeiss and ASML in a patent dispute concerning lithography machines.
Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof (ITC 2018): Counsel for Carl Zeiss and ASML in a patent dispute concerning digital cameras.
Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same (ITC 2017): Counsel for MediaTek and MStar in an ITC investigation brought by Broadcom concerning video processing hardware and software.
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Computers, Tablet Computers, Digital Media Players, and Cameras (ITC 2015) (Shaw, ALJ): Counsel for respondent in an ITC investigation brought by Ericsson involving battery software technology.
Certor Sports, LLC et al. v. Apalone, Inc. (PTAB; IPR2022-00196): Counsel for Petitioner who is a sporting goods manufacturer; successfully challenged and invalidated multiple claims that were asserted in litigation.
Quantum Metric Inc., et al. v. Content Square SAS (PTAB; IPR2021-00363 and IPR2021-00464): Counsel for Petitioner who is a leading provider in the digital analytics space; successfully challenged and invalidated all claims of two patents.
Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. et al. v. Plastipak Packaging Inc. (PTAB 2020): Part of team that was successful in having the PTAB deny institution on all patents on which IPRs were filed.
Esselte Corp. et al. v. DYMO (PTAB 2015): Counsel for DYMO in connection with an inter partes review petition relating to printer software technology.