Vincent J. Belusko

Belusko likes to know how things work. Formerly an engineering undergraduate at Washington University in St. Louis, Belusko was faced with an interesting decision upon graduation; pursue further studies in engineering, or “do this law thing.” This was in 1981, when then-President Jimmy Carter was in the process of establishing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It was a fortuitous time to get into patent law.

“It changed the whole world of what I do,” Belusko recalled. “All of a sudden, you had a uniform body of [patent] law,” he said. “We were shifting to what we call a knowledge-based economy, and intellectual property was really central to that.”

In December, Belusko — as lead counsel — perusaded a jury in federal court to return a noninfringement verdict on five digital camera technology patents for his client, Nikon Corp. The lawsuit was brought by Carl Zeiss A.G. and ASML Netherlands B.V.

The verdict was the second complete defense victory Belusko delivered for Nikon against Zeiss and ASML last year. Carl Zeiss AG et al. v. Nikon Corporation et al., 17-CV07083 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 26, 2017).

The Nikon cases involved dense technologies and multiple patents, having to do with facial recognition and camera filters. Belusko appreciates the challenge of having to convince jurors of his argument, when they might not be well-versed in the subject matter.

“When you have a jury in this setting, at first they’re a little frightened by the fact that it’s a technical case,” he observed.

To help make the material accessible to jurors, he uses analogies, graphics, thematics and more — anything to render the contested material simpler and more comprehensible.

Part of the dispute involved linear and non-linear filters in the camera. “What we tried to explain is, what’s the difference between linear and non-linear?” Belusko said. “What really resonated with the jury, ultimately, was that they were different; one is linear and the other is not — it can’t be both.”

This simple way of explaining ultimately helped him win the case. “Whether the jury fully appreciates in the computer domain what linear means versus non-linear, they got the idea that it can’t be two things,” he said.

Working with IP law “gets me into new technologies,” he said. “I don’t have to have total knowledge of everything, I just need to have good experts and a willingness to learn.”

— Dan Heching