K.T. (Sunny) Cherian is a Partner in the San Francisco office. He handles all areas of intellectual property litigation. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Mr. Cherian was a program manager with the US Department of Energy, specializing in renewable energy conversion. He served as the project manager to the world's then-largest solar electric plant, a 10MWe Solar Central receiver power plant, located near Barstow, California. Mr. Cherian also was a consultant to Sandia National Laboratories and the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Mr. Cherian has been named a Northern California Super Lawyer by the Daily Journal since it's inception. Representative Highlights * BridgeLux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. (E.D. Texas) and Cree, Inc.... Read moreK.T. (Sunny) Cherian is a Partner in the San Francisco office. He handles all areas of intellectual property litigation. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Mr. Cherian was a program manager with the US Department of Energy, specializing in renewable energy conversion. He served as the project manager to the world's then-largest solar electric plant, a 10MWe Solar Central receiver power plant, located near Barstow, California. Mr. Cherian also was a consultant to Sandia National Laboratories and the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Super LawyerDaily Journal since it's inception. Representative HighlightsBridgeLux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. (E.D. Texas) and Cree, Inc. and Trustees. Successfully represented BridgeLux, Inc., a leading Silicon Valley high power light emitting diode (LED) company, in a series of patent infringement cases against competitor Cree, Inc. involving five LED patents. Obtained favorable confidential settlement as a result of successful strategy involving declaratory judgment actions and Markman claim construction of patents-in-suit. MOSAID v. Micron, Powerchip, et al. Representation of MOSAID in this multiple patent case involving memory and CMOS imaging chip technology. The case proceeded in both the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California and was settled favorably to MOSAID with all parties taking a license to the patents-in-suit after the Markman hearing but before a Markman decision was issued. Micron Semiconductor, Inc. v. Hyundai, et al. Represented a respondent in a patent infringement action involving anisotropic plasma etching of semiconductors. The trial spanned four weeks, during which officials from many Silicon Valley companies appeared to testify in Hyundai's case-in-chief. The matter was settled prior to a written decision from the administrative law judge. * (1) ASM America, Inc., and (2) ASM International N.V., Plaintiffs v. (1) Applied Materials, Inc., Defendant.O2 Micro v. Bitek (2006). Represented O2 Micro in a continuing series of cases enforcing O2's patent rights to power converter technology used in LCD screens (laptop computers and monitors). A jury trial in Marshall, Texas resulted in a finding in favor of O2 of willful infringement and an injunction. Opposing counsel was Powell Goldstein. O2 Micro v. Sumida (2005). Represented O2 Micro in continuing series of cases enforcing O2's patent rights to power converter technology used in LCD screens (laptop computers and monitors). A jury trial in Marshall, Texas, resulted in a finding in favor of O2 of willful infringement and the maximum amount of damages. Opposing counsel was Kenyon and Kenyon. Intel Corporation v. Hyundai Electronic Industries Co., Ltd. and Hyundai Electronics America, Inc. Represented defendants in a patent infringement action. Lucent Technologies, Inc., v. Foundry Networks, Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and Foundry Networks, Inc., v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Represented Foundry Networks, Inc., in a four patent litigation matter involving networking patents. Represented Foundry in a separate matter against Lucent in Texas asserting a patent against Lucent VOIP platforms. Lucent agreed to settle the matter on highly favorable terms to Foundry. Alcatel v. Foundry Networks, Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Represented Foundry Networks, Inc., in a counterclaim against Alcatel asserting a patent against Network VOIP platforms. Case settled on favorable terms. Tinkers & Chance v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Represented defendant in a suit for patent infringement related to electronic educational toys. Achieved settlement extremely favorable to client. * Berkeley Heartlab, Inc., Plaintiff, v. The Regents of the University of California; Cardioprofile, Inc.; Ronald Krauss; and Patricia Blanche, Defendants.BridgeLux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and BridgeLux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Represented BridgeLux in two separate actions for patent infringement and declaratory judgments of noninfringement involving high-powered LED technology. In re Gemstar Development Corporation Patent Litigation. Representing Gemstar in multidistrict litigation involving Scientific-Atlanta, Pioneer and EchoStar. In the Matter of Certain Electronic Educational Devices and Components Thereof. Represented respondents in patent litigation before the International Trade Commission. In the Matter of Certain Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof. Represented complainants in multi-patent litigation before the International Trade Commission. On appeal. Intel Corporation v. Hyundai Electronic Industries Co., Ltd. and Hyundai Electronics America, Inc. Represented defendants in patent infringement action. Plaintiff initially asserted four patents. At settlement only one patent remained in suit. Intergraph Corporation v. Intel Corporation. Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving two microprocessor patents. Court ruled in client's favor. * Lucent Technologies Inc., Plaintiff, v. Extreme Networks, Inc. and Foundry Networks, Inc., Defendants.Micron Semiconductor, Inc. v. Hyundai, et al. Represented respondent in patent infringement action involving anisotropic plasma etching of semiconductors. NEC v. Hyundai, et al. Represented Hyundai in patent infringement action. * Network Appliance, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. Bluearc Corp., a Delaware corporation, Defendant.O2 Micro v. Rohm Company. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. After four days of trial, case settled on confidential terms. Technology related to burst mode dimming of liquid crystal displays. Prevue Interactive, Inc., et al. v. StarSight Telecast, Inc. Represented StarSight Telecast, Inc., in patent infringement and antitrust action. StarSight v. TiVo. Represented plaintiff in patent litigation. Sulzer Textil A.G., et al. v. Picanol. Represented plaintiffs in patent infringement action. On appeal. Sulzer Textil A.G., et al. v. Tsudakoma Corp., et al. Represented plaintiffs in patent infringement action. Technology Innovations, LLC v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., et al. Represented defendants in patent litigation. Texas Instruments v. Hyundai, et al. Represented Hyundai in patent infringement action. Professional Affiliations* American Bar Association * Bar Association of San Francisco * San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Association Publications & Speaking EngagementsSpeeches"Patent Litigation and Inequitable Conduct Defenses: Asserting and Defending Inequitable Conduct Challenges Amid Arguably Inconsistent Federal Circuit Standards." Sutherland Webinar, (September 2009). Read less