This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Douglas E. Lumish

By Hadley Robinson | Sep. 12, 2013

Sep. 12, 2013

Douglas E. Lumish

See more on Douglas E. Lumish

Latham & Watkins LLP | Menlo Park | Practice type: Litigation


Switching firms in May has not slowed Lumish's courtroom winning streak. In July, Lumish and his team at Latham & Watkins won a major patent infringement case involving online translation technologies.


Lumish helped secure a winning verdict for his client, Transperfect Global Inc., when the jury found MotionPoint Corp. infringed one patent and was liable for $1 million in damages while rejecting three of his opponent's asserted patents as invalid.


"Essentially, the other side was trying to shut our client out of the marketplace," Lumish said. "Now they have to write a check to our client."


Lumish felt the case was interesting because it didn't involve a non-practicing entity, unlike many patent infringement cases in Silicon Valley.


"These were real competitors in a real space," he said.


In the past several years, Lumish has frequently been pulled in to replace counsel when it becomes clear a case is going to trial.


"If they think it's going to be unlikely to settle early or at all, we are a team that can help them get their case to trial and we can do it expertly," Lumish said.


Another highlight for Lumish this year was the appellate affirmation of an earlier win against MagSil Corp. involving disk drive technology. It upheld a Delaware district court's summary judgment for his client Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Inc. after most of the other defendants had settled. Lumish challenged the patent using a defense that the claim was not enabled, meaning the full scope was not properly articulated.


"That case has quickly become one of the most cited cases for the enablement defense," Lumish said. "I'm very proud of that and my role in that. I'm very grateful that case got decided the way it did."

- HADLEY ROBINSON

#269618

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com