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
  • Overview
  • Experience
  • Insights
  • Recognition

About Riqui

Ricardo Bonilla is a litigation attorney focusing his practice across all areas of commercial and intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patents. Mr. Bonilla currently serves as the firm’s recruiting principal in Dallas and co-chair of Lawtinos, the firm’s Hispanic/Latinx legal staff affinity group. Mr. Bonilla is also head of Fish’s Next Gen initiative, which provides a voice and opportunities for newer lawyers and ensures proper training for Fish’s associates. He was previously a summer associate with the firm in 2010 and 2011 after joining the firm via its 1L Diversity Fellowship Program.

Mr. Bonilla has represented hundreds of clients in U.S. district courts around the country in intellectual property disputes involving a wide range of technologies, including e-commerce and website systems, computer network architecture, computer software, encryption, telecommunication, and mobile applications. Mr. Bonilla’s intellectual property practice has also involved multiple appeals where he has represented clients as both appellants and appellees before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Additionally, Mr. Bonilla has represented many individuals and companies state and federal courts in Texas in commercial disputes and general litigation, as well as class action and qui tam litigations.

Mr. Bonilla also served as an assistant district attorney in the Dallas County district attorney’s office as part of its lawyer on loan program. The program afforded him an opportunity to serve Dallas County as a misdemeanor prosecutor, where he picked the jury for or first-chaired multiple jury trials, tried cases to the bench, and handled multiple hearings on state and defense motions.

Prior to law school, Mr. Bonilla was a vulnerability research manager at Critical Watch (Achilles Guard Inc.) before interning with Nortel Networks Inc., where he focused on the development and testing of multiple wireless technologies. He was also a software development intern for Eklin Information Systems, where he developed utilities for the company’s proprietary software using various programming languages, including C++, C#, SQL, HTML, and Java.

Publications

Mr. Bonilla is a contributing author to Fish’s IP Law Essentials.

Ricardo ‘Riqui’ Bonilla is One to Watch,” Profile for Dallas Association of Young Lawyers (December 2020).

Empowering Our Future Litigation Leaders,” Corporate Counsel Business Journal (November 2020).

They’ve Got Next: Intellectual Property Fresh Face Ricardo Bonilla,” Profile in Bloomberg Law (October 23, 2020).

What is Patentable Subject Matter?,” co-authored with Alex Pechette, Fish IP Law Essentials Blog (May 26, 2020).

Patent Local Rules: Knowing Them Well Can Make Litigating Your Case Smoother,” co-authored with Michael Amon, Megan Chacon, Madelyn McCormick, Kayleigh McGlynn, Jason Wolff, Fish IP Law Essentials Blog (April 22, 2020).

Federal Circuit Rules No “Prevailing Party” for Attorneys’ Fees under § 285 after Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal – Even Where Defendant Invalidates Patent-in-Suit,” Fish Litigation Blog, April 2020 (co-author).

EDTX & NDTX Monthly Wrap-Up — September 2019, Fish Litigation Blog, September 2019 (author).

Shifting the § 101 Burden,” Fish Litigation Blog, February 2016 (author).

“Social Media Do’s and Don’ts – Discussing Ongoing Litigation,” Fish Litigation Blog, June 2015 (author).

“Social Media Dos and Don’ts for Lawyers,” State Bar of Texas, Business Disputes course book, September 2014 (co-author).

Contention Discovery Requests in Federal Cases in Texas: Punting in the First Quarter Could Lead to Disaster in the Fourth, Texas Young Lawyers Association eNews (October 2013).

A Patented Lie: Analyzing the Worthiness of Business Method Patents After Bilski v. Kappos, 43 Texas Tech Law Review 1285 (Summer 2011).

Presentations

NPE Litigation: Trends &  Strategies,” Fish Litigation Webinar, April 29, 2020 (co-speaker).

Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (District of Delaware & United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit): Obtained Federal Circuit affirmance of summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on behalf of Bed Bath & Beyond in patent infringement lawsuit involving the local processing of payments for orders placed remotely, as well as an award of attorneys’ fees after a finding that the case was exceptional under § 285, which the Federal Circuit also affirmed.

Scott H. Howard et al. v. Chiron Point Investment Fund I, LLC (Dallas, Texas): Obtained $2+ million jury verdict for plaintiffs in lawsuit against the purchaser of plaintiffs’ business over breach of purchase agreement, along with an award of all attorneys’ fees and costs.

Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer Inc. (District of Delaware): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to a financial management system, along with an award of all of client’s attorney fees.

Opal Run LLC v. C&A Marketing, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas): After forcing plaintiff to dismiss its case with prejudice without a settlement or payment, obtained grant of exceptional case finding under § 285 in case where plaintiff continued its pursuit of non-viable claims solely in an effort to avoid the risk of having to pay client’s attorney’s fees.

Mantis Communications, LLC v. Baskin-Robbins Franchising, LLC, et al. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained grant and Federal Circuit affirmance of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patents directed to delivering content to mobile devices.

BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained grant and Federal Circuit affirmance of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patents directed to considering historical usage information while inputting data.

Karamelion LLC v. Intermatic Incorporated (Northern District of Illinois): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to using a network of relays to communicate over a distance.

Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Minted, LLC (Southern District of Florida): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patents directed to automated notifications of travel status.

Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, Inc. (District of Delaware): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to online chat technology.

Tangelo IP LLC v. Tupperware Brands Corporation. (District of Delaware): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to electronic catalog technology.

Secure Cam LLC v. Tend Insights, Inc. (Northern District of California): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to image recognition technology used in digital cameras.

Lindsay Corp. v. Valmont Industries Inc. (USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board): Obtained decision not to institute inter partes review in case involving client’s patent directed to systems for monitoring and controlling irrigation equipment.

EMG Technology LLC v. Etsy Inc. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patents directed to displaying information in a hierarchical tree format on a computer screen.

Mankes v. Fandango, LLC and Regal Entertainment Group (Eastern District of North Carolina): Obtained grant and Federal Circuit affirmance of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to allocating, tracking, and controlling inventory.

Icon Laser Solutions, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co.(Northern District of Texas): Obtained Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for clients Abercrombie & Fitch, Aeropostale, American Eagle Outfitters, Ralph Lauren, and Nine West Holdings in patent infringement lawsuit involving methods for using lasers to color and fade textiles.

Tiffany and Company v. Lazare Kaplan International, Inc. (USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board): Obtained final written decision invalidating claims relating to microinscribing the surface of a gemstone using a laser for Tiffany and Company as petitioner in inter partes review proceeding.

TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit, Inc. et al. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for Hertz in patent infringement lawsuit involving website encryption technology. Also represented clients Expedia, Orbitz, and Google in earlier cases against TQP, resulting in favorable settlements on the eve of trial.

ICON Internet Competence Network v. Travelocity.com LP (Northern District of Texas & United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit): Obtained Federal Circuit affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement for Travelocity in patent infringement lawsuit involving web site systems for generating a virtual reality scene, where the plaintiff sought damages of over $25 million. The plaintiff eventually assigned its patents to Travelocity to end the lawsuit.

Joshua J. Eisner v. Teletech Services Corporation (Western District of Missouri): Obtained dismissal with prejudice of claims against defendant Teletech Services Corporation in case involving class-action lawsuit alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Landmark Technology, LLC v. Assurant, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation to grant Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on asserted patent’s failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.

E2E Processing, Inc. v. Cabela’s Incorporated (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained dismissal with prejudice of Cabela’s in case involving end-to-end processing technology.

Guyzar LLC v. StubHub, Inc. (District of Delaware): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to confidentially authenticating a user by relying on a third party.

Tenaha Licensing LLC v. Ascom (US) Inc. (District of Delaware): Obtained dismissals of cases against multiple clients after securing report and recommendation from magistrate judge recommending grant of Rule 12(b)(6) motions under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to relaying notification signals.

Semantic Search Technologies, LLC v. Aldo US, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) motions under § 101 based on ineligibility of patents directed to iteratively searching for and presenting information based on user feedback.

Orostream LLC v. Actiontec Electronics, Inc. (Northern District of California): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) motions under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to transmitting targeted information to users over a network.

Checksum Ventures LLC v. Dell Inc. (Northern District of Illinois): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) motions under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to the manipulation of data to enable checksum technology.

Rondevoo Technologies, LLC v. Aernos, Inc. (District of Delaware): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) motions under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to a sensor that detects and changes in reaction to the presence of a gas, chemical, or biological object.

Top Lawyer Under 40” by Hispanic National Bar Association, 2021.

“Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch” by The Best Lawyers in America©, 2021.

“Best Lawyers in America” by The Best Lawyers in America©, 2021.

Texas Rising Star by Super Lawyers, 2016-2021.

On the Rise – Texas Lawyer, 2018.

On the Rise – Top 40 Young Lawyers by American Bar Association – Young Lawyers Division, 2018.

Leadership Council on Legal Diversity – Pathfinder, 2018.

Best Lawyer Under 40 by D Magazine, 2018-2019.

Named to Lawyers of Color’s Hot List, 2014.

Focus Areas
Education

J.D. magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, Order of Barristers, National Order of Scribes, Texas Tech University School of Law (2012)


B.S. cum laude, Software Engineering, University of Texas at Dallas (2009)

Admissions
  • Texas 2012
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 2009
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Languages
  • English
  • Spanish
Memberships & Affiliations

American Bar Association, Patent Litigation Committee, NPE Subcommittee.

Leadership Council on Legal Diversity, City Lead – 1L Diversity Mentorship Program (Dallas); Executive Committee Member, Vice-Chair of 2021 Leadership Symposium.

Dallas Bar Association.

Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, Co-Chair of Lawyers Promoting Diversity Committee; 2016 Leadership Class.

Dallas Hispanic Bar Association.

Hispanic National Bar Association.

Texas Association of Young Lawyers.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Bar Association.

What's trending with Riqui

Filter by
News
March 19, 2021
Hispanic National Bar Association Recognizes Fish & Richardson Principal Ricardo Bonilla as a “Top Lawyer Under 40”
Press Release
Recognition
News
News
February 22, 2021
Fish & Richardson and ACLU of Massachusetts Win Pro Bono Lawsuit for Asylum-Seekers Challenging “Return to Mexico” Policy
Press Release
News
Q&A
November 12, 2020
Q&A with Riqui Bonilla and Nitika Gupta Fiorella for Corporate Counsel Business Journal
Authors: Nitika Gupta Fiorella, Ricardo Bonilla
News
October 23, 2020
Ricardo Bonilla Profiled in Bloomberg Law Article
Media Mention
Recognition
News
Blog
May 26, 2020
What is Patentable Subject Matter?
Author: Ricardo Bonilla
Blogs
IP Law Essentials
News
May 18, 2020
Fish & Richardson Helps ACLU of Massachusetts Win Pro Bono Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful “Return to Mexico” Policy for Asylum-Seekers
News
Blog
April 22, 2020
Patent Local Rules: Knowing Them Well Can Make Litigating Your Case Smoother
Authors: Kayleigh E. McGlynn, Madelyn McCormick, Megan A. Chacon, Jason W. Wolff, Michael A. Amon, Ricardo Bonilla
Blogs
IP Law Essentials
Blog
April 14, 2020
Federal Circuit Rules No “Prevailing Party” for Attorneys’ Fees under § 285 after Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal – Even Where Defendant Invalidates Patent-in-Suit
Authors: Robert A. Ehrlich, David B. Conrad, Ricardo Bonilla
IP Litigation
Event
April 29th, 2020 | 1:30 pm EDT
Webinar | NPE Litigation: Trends & Strategies
Webinar
News
February 7, 2020
Fish & Richardson Elevates 14 Attorneys to Principal
Press Release
News
Blog
September 30, 2019
EDTX & NDTX Monthly Wrap-Up – September 2019
Author: Ricardo Bonilla
IP Litigation
News
January 31, 2019
Fish & Richardson Named #1 Patent Litigation Firm for Defendants in the U.S. for 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
Press Release
Recognition
News
load more topics
TOP