Precedent-setting work in patent litigation and counseling

Munger, Tolles & Olson vigorously protects its clients’ innovations, drawing on decades of experience to guide them towards favorable resolutions inside and outside of the courtroom. We are well known for efficiently handling precedent-setting matters, particularly those at the intersection of patent, antitrust and trade secret law, and patents essential to industry standards.

Whether our clients are asserting patents or defending themselves from infringement claims, they trust us to guide cases to a successful resolution through smart, cost-effective strategies, whether that’s early motion practice, inter partes reviews and other proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, incisively managing discovery, or messaging to opponents that we’re ready to go to trial. Our deep bench of experienced trial lawyers have made complex patent matters clear to both judges and juries. We also have appellate lawyers who specialize in practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.


Our practice includes: 

Patent Issues

  • Infringement, Validity and Unenforceability
  • Pre-Litigation Planning
  • Transactions and Freedom to Operate

Antitrust Issues

  • Standard Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing
  • Sham Litigation
  • Pay-for-Delay Claims

Trials and Appeals

  • District Court Litigation
  • Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • Federal Circuit Appeals


We represent a wide range of clients, specializing in the technology, media and entertainment, life sciences and pharmaceuticals, and industrial sectors, including:

Technology, Media & Industry

  • Boeing
  • Comcast
  • Disney
  • Ericsson
  • Google


  • Intel
  • PNC Bank
  • Samsung
  • Snap
  • Verizon

Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences

  • Abbott Laboratories
  • AbbVie
  • Amgen
  • Genentech


  • Gilead Sciences
  • Solvay Pharmaceuticals
  • Takeda Pharmaceuticals


Many of our lawyers sharpened their patent expertise as law clerks in the Federal Circuit; a number of others have advanced scientific and engineering degrees. Our attorneys include:

Related Practices

As needed, our patent representations draw on attorneys from other practices, including:



Life Sciences and


Trade Secret and
Employee Mobility



Trials and Appeals

We have won trials and summary judgments for our clients in matters involving hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and years of product development. Our work includes:

  • Kite Pharma, Inc., a subsidiary of Gilead Sciences, Inc., in invalidating the plaintiff’s patents during infringement litigation over an innovative cancer therapy and reversing a judgment for $1.2 billion and royalties.
  • Takeda Pharmaceuticals and its affiliates, in obtaining judgments of infringement and awards of injunctive relief against three companies in a bench trial over generic versions of the acid reflux drug Dexilant.
  • AbbVie, Inc., in prevailing at a jury trial, and on appeal, in patent litigation against Novartis involving the cyclosporine product Gengraf.
  • Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and others in winning summary judgment, successfully defended on appeal, in a suit involving software multithreading.
  • Rambus, as both plaintiff and defendant in successful battles against the world’s largest dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) manufacturers in a battle for rights to the fundamental design of the memory chips used in nearly all major computing devices. We obtained a $306 million jury verdict in a patent trial against one party, and a successful verdict against monopolization and unfair competition claims brought by others. We also defeated a $400 million patent damages offset through breach of contract counterclaims after a bench trial.
  • AbbVie, then part of Abbott Laboratories, in winning an en banc Federal Circuit ruling that fundamentally altered the standards for determining inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  • Intel, Comcast, High Tech Inventors Alliance and others, as amicus at the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court on high-profile issues ranging from the scope of appellate review over PTAB decisions to the permissibility of functional claiming.

Infringement and Licensing

We have defended infringement cases brought by both competitors and non-practicing entities, for clients such as:

  • Google LLC in setting an important precedent for obtaining mandamus relief for patent infringement matters and obtaining a critical change of venue.
  • Google and YouTube, in prevailing against five asserted patents for compressing and streaming digital video, invalidating two, obtaining favorable claim constructions on two more and dismissing the last as directed to ineligible subject matter.
  • Snap, Inc., against charges it infringed the patents of social mapping application You Map and misappropriated trade secrets by signing up for a beta test of its software.
  • Intel Corporation in dismissing infringement claims brought against it in a broad litigation campaign targeting wireless networks, broadband internet providers and network equipment suppliers.
  • Abbott Laboratories in a long-running patent licensing and trade secret dispute involving genetic amplification technology now used in COVID-19 testing, leading to a very favorable settlement for the client.
  • PNC Bank in limiting the damages awarded in multiple patent infringement lawsuits relating to its remote check deposit patent portfolio.


We have counseled pharmaceutical clients through claims of monopolization, “sham litigation” and “pay-for-delay” arrangements brought by competitors, federal agencies and wholesalers, including:

  • AbbVie, in overlapping class actions and enforcement proceedings in multiple jurisdictions related to alleged “sham litigation” patent settlements with generic drug manufacturers regarding the testosterone replacement therapy AndroGel, with claims totaling billions of dollars.
  • Actavis, as lead appellate counsel in the landmark FTC v. Actavis decision, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that "reverse payment" pharma patent settlements are not presumptively unlawful, but should be evaluated under the rule of reason.
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical, in obtaining a denial of class certification to two proposed classes of indirect purchasers alleging that Takeda's conduct in licensing and enforcing patents delayed entry into the market of a generic version of the muscle relaxant, Skelaxin®. This was one of the first denials of certification of a large proposed class in pharmaceutical antitrust litigation. 


Case Studies

  • Kite Pharma: Overturning a $1 billion medical patent infringement ruling

MTO and co-counsel helped Kite Pharma, Inc., a subsidiary of Gilead Sciences, defeat a patent infringement complaint filed by Juno Therapeutics (now a subsidiary of Bristol Meyers Squibb) and its licensor, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, regarding two prominent start-ups’ competing cancer treatments. The plaintiffs alleged that Kite Pharma’s biologic drug, Yescarta®, infringed their patent and claimed more than $1.2 billion in damages.

The case went to trial in December 2019 and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Juno. Kite appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In August 2021, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, agreeing with our argument that the asserted patent claims were invalid for lack of adequate written description. The Federal Circuit rejected Juno’s petition for rehearing. Juno filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was rejected in November 2022. Juno filed a petition for reconsideration, which was denied in January 2023.

Media Coverage: Fed. Circ. Wipes Out $1.1B Juno IP Win On Cancer Drug


  • Google: Dismissing patent infringement claims on multiple appeals

We obtained a complete victory on behalf of Google in Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, which alleged that Google Sheets infringed on six Data Engine Technologies patents covering the concept of using tabs to organize a “three-dimensional spreadsheet.”

Google initially obtained dismissal of the case, under the Alice standard, describing the patents as too abstract to be valid. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision and, on remand, Google retained Munger, Tolles & Olson to prepare the case for trial.

Our team, led by Gregory P. Stone and Zachary M. Briers, obtained an order granting a favorable construction of the disputed claim term, successfully arguing that Google Sheets does not present data in a three-dimensional format. Following this, the District Court granted summary judgment in September 2020, finding that Google Sheets does not infringe the asserted patents.

Data Engine Technologies appealed to the Federal Circuit, countering that the term “three-dimensional” was not distinguishing in this context. A team led by Ginger D. Anders defended the ruling and a three-judge panel upheld the summary judgment for Google in August 2021, stating that “where the preamble is relied on to distinguish prior art during prosecution, it cannot later be argued that the preamble has no weight.”

Media Coverage: Fed. Circ. Clears Google In Spreadsheet Patent Case



Zachary M. Briers

Heather E. Takahashi


Ginger Anders Named to The National Law Journal’s 2023 Intellectual Property Trailblazers List

Ginger Anders Named to The National Law Journal’s 2023 Intellectual Property Trailblazers List

Munger, Tolles & Olson partner Ginger Anders was named to The National Law Journal’s 2023 Intellectual Property Trailblazers list for her extensive experience...
Read More
Lawdragon Names 18 Munger, Tolles & Olson Partners to 2024 500 Leading Litigators in America List

Lawdragon Names 18 Munger, Tolles & Olson Partners to 2024 500 Leading Litigators in America List

Lawdragon has recognized 18 Munger, Tolles & Olson partners in the second annual edition of its 500 Leading Litigators in America list.
Read More
Munger, Tolles & Olson’s Defense of Kite Pharma Against Patent Infringement Claims Reaches Successful Conclusion

Munger, Tolles & Olson’s Defense of Kite Pharma Against Patent Infringement Claims Reaches Successful Conclusion

Munger, Tolles & Olson, in collaboration with co-counsel at Fish & Richardson and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, successfully defended Kite Pharma in an...
Read More