Search Team

Search by Last Name
  • Overview
  • Experience
  • Insights
  • Recognition

About Karan

Karan Jhurani maintains a multi-faceted practice at Fish & Richardson, emphasizing patent prosecution and counseling, post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and complex patent litigation. Karan’s extensive experience in these different IP practice areas enables him to provide a full range of services to his clients while developing sound legal strategies that consider every aspect of intellectual property protection.

Karan has deep expertise in managing large 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 in e-commerce, web search, and sporting equipment industries.

At the PTAB, Karan has successfully represented both patent owners and petitioners in post-grant proceedings, having developed winning case strategies and legal theories for his clients. Karan has substantial experience in all major aspects of post grant proceedings, from petition drafting to conducting depositions to assisting with oral hearings. Karan is also the co-chair of the firm’s Post Grant Practitioner’s Committee.

Karan’s litigation practice focuses on representing clients in actions filed in U.S. district courts across the country and at the International Trade Commission (ITC). 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 (ZEISS) and its customer ASML Netherlands BV against Nikon. Karan was the key associate 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 a wide range of products and technologies, including:

  • Search engine algorithms
  • Microlithography and optics
  • Object-relational mapping technology
  • Digital image and video processing technology
  • Cellular communication standards
  • Audio and video decoding technologies
  • Internet of Things (IoT)
  • Software as a Service (SAAS)
  • Financial technologies
  • Machine learning
  • Business intelligence and advanced analytics
  • Relational databases
  • Mobile applications and security
  • E-commerce solutions
  • Sporting equipment
  • Manufacturing and industrial management systems

Prior to entering the practice of law, Karan worked as a senior consultant at IBM where he designed and implemented SaaS technology solutions for multiple Fortune 500 companies. Through his professional experience and education, Karan is proficient in multiple software programming languages and various software design principles, including object-oriented design, multi-tier architectures, and relational database design.

In addition to his intellectual property practice, Karan devotes a significant amount of time to diversity issues in his role as a co-chair of the firm’s Allyship Committee and the Diversity Advisory Committee. Karan also invests his time in immigration-related pro bono efforts. 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 US administration’s “separate at the border” policy. He is also representing a gay man seeking asylum in the U.S. after facing persecution in his home country on account of his sexual orientation.

When he’s not working, Karan spends his time keeping up with his 4- and 2-year-old sons. And when the boys allow it, Karan also enjoys working out at Crossfit and playing tennis with friends.


Speaking Engagements

District Court

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.


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.


Quantum Metric Inc., et al. v. Content Square SAS (PTAB): Counsel for petitioner.

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.

  • Named to the “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch” list by The Best Lawyers in America© (2022)
Focus Areas

J.D. with honors, Order of the Coif, Emory University School of Law (2014) Editor, IP Theory Law Publication; Emory Transactional Program Negotiation Team

B.S. with highest honors, Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology (2009)

  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 2015
  • Georgia 2014
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 2010
  • English
  • Hindi

What's trending with Karan