Linhong Zhang is an experienced trial and litigation attorney who has been named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in patent litigation for 2014-2018. 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, volatile memory, online sales systems, web browsers and applications, Internet billing methods, advertising display systems, video compression, graphical user interfaces, network monitoring, and software customization.
“Interplay of Patent and Trade Secrets,” panelist, China Ministry of Commerce (June 9 – Nanjing and June 12, 2017 – Shenzhen)
“Design Arounds in 337 Investigations,” speaker, China Ministry of Commerce (June 14 – Guangzhou)
Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked electronics Components, and Products Containing Same – 337-TA-1097 – Representing SK Hynix in a patent infringement action involving SSD disk drives and stacked volatile memories. Case pending.
Certain Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof Such as Spare Parts – 337-TA-1057 – Representing Complainant iRobot in a patent infringement investigation relating to autonomous behavior and embedded systems. Obtained violation at the initial determination. Case pending.
Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing The Same – 337-TA-1047 – Represented Respondents MediaTek and MStar in a patent infringement action involving video processing technology. Settled favorably.
Certain Graphics Processors, DDR Memory Controllers, and Products Containing the Same – 337-TA-1037 –Represented Respondent MediaTek in a patent infringement action involving graphics processing and memory technologies. Settled favorably.
Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof – 337-TA-1016 – Representing Complainant The Chamberlain Group, Inc. in a patent infringement action involving garage door opener systems. Obtained violation at the final determination. Modification proceeding pending.
Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same – 337-TA-972 – Represented Respondent Nautilus Hyosung against Diebold in patent litigation concerning technology associated with ATMs. Obtained summary determination of noninfringement as to certain products and summary determination of invalidity as to certain claims.
Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof I, 337-TA-944 – Represented Respondent Arista Networks in patent infringement case involving networking technologies. Settled favorably.
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.
District Court Cases
Personalized Media Communications, LLC, v. TCL Corp. et al. – (E.D. Tex.) – Represented TCL in a patent infringement action involving video and audio decoding technologies. Settled favorably.
Sharp Corporation v. Hisense Electric, Co. Ltd. et al. – (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Hisense in a patent litigation action involving digital televisions. Settled favorably.
Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al. – (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Huawei in a patent infringement action 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.
Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00978, IPR2016-00308 – Represented petitioner. Favorable final written decisions.
Named a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers (2014-2018).
J.D., Law and Business Certificate, Vanderbilt University Law School (2007) Associate Editor, Vanderbilt Law Review
M.S., Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University (2004)
B.S., Finance, Computer Science, University of Maryland (2002)
- Delaware 2007
- District of Columbia 2008
- New York 2009
- U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
- Mandarin Chinese
September 9, 2020
Fish & Richardson Clients Granted Rare Summary Determination in ITC Trade Secret Case
June 23, 2020
Fish & Richardson Wins Major ITC Patent Case for JinkoSolar
November 17th, 2010
22nd Annual NAPABA INSPIRE Convention
February 20, 2014
Inurement for § 102(g)(2) Does Not Require the Inventor to Expressly Direct Another to Reduce His Invention to Practice