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

Background

Vikram Iyengar is an Associate in Fish & Richardson’s Austin office. Dr. Iyengar’s practice focuses on strategic patent counseling, parent portfolio analysis, IP due diligence, and support for Inter Partes Reviews. His technical expertise includes machines learning, server architectures, cloud computing, internet security, virtual reality devices, satellite technology, networking technology, integrated circuit design, electronic design automation, semiconductor manufacturing and social media technology.

Education

J.D., Stanford Law School 2015
Articles Editor, Stanford Law Review
(2013-2014)


Ph.D., Duke University 2002
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Outstanding PhD Thesis Award,
European Design Automation Assoication


M.S., Boston University 1998
Electrical and Computer Engineering


B.E., Birla Institute of Technology 1996
Electrical and Electronics Engineering

Admissions

  • California
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States District Court for the Central District of California
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Other Distinctions

Publications

Implications of Certiorari Denial in Belmora v. Bayer Consumer Care, Intellectual Property Law Bulletin (2017)

Revisiting NAFTA Could Mean Stronger Protections for IP Owners, Intellectual Property Law Bulletin (2017)

Martin Shkreli Convicted on Three of Eight Counts of Securities Fraud, Life Sciences Legal Insights (2017)

Patent Derivation at the Federal Circuit, DAILY J. (2017)

Offshore Patent Transfer Payments Draw IRS, Court Scrutiny, Law360 (2016)

The Relevance of Expert Testimony to Claims of “Deliberate Indifference” Under the Eighth Amendment, 52 Criminal Law Bulletin 43 (2016)

Should Pharmaceutical Product Hopping Be Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny? 97 J. Patent & Trademark Office SOC. 663 (2015)

Mylan v. Warner Chilcott: A Study in Pharmaceutical Product Hopping, 19 Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 245 (2015)

U.S. v. Jones: Inadequate to Promote Privacy for Citizens or Efficiency for Law Enforcement, 19 TEX. J. C.L. & C.R. 335 (2014)

Maryland v. King: The Case for Uniform, Nation-Wide DNA Collection and DNA Database Laws, 23 Information & Communication Technology Law Journal Online 77 (2014)

Searching Smartphones Incident to an Arrest, 3 Arizona Summit Law Review 115 (2014)