Ehab Samuel has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property law with an emphasis on patent and trademark prosecution, counseling, litigation, and licensing as well as copyright, trade secret, false advertising, and unfair competition. With a Masters’s Degree in both Electrical Engineering and Chemical Engineering, Ehab is often relied upon to understand complex technologies and craft winning legal strategies that meet the client’s business objectives.
Ehab has litigated cases in federal trials and appellate courts throughout the country, before the International Trade Commission (ITC), and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Most recently, in a highly-contested patent case, he obtained a summary judgment of infringement and validity, a jury verdict of willful infringement and lost profit damages, and a post-trial judgment of treble damages, attorneys fees, and permanent injunction. Aside from patent litigation, Ehab has led a trial team of 10 attorneys in enforcing TherapeuticsMD’s trademark rights against a competing pharmaceutical company, which concluded on favorable settlement terms. Per the SEC filing of the competing company, “[o]n July 17, 2022, the Company settled the lawsuit with TherapeuticsMD pursuant to which the Company agreed to rebrand its product by July 2024 to coincide with its marketing objectives which may include the potential new indications for the prevention of urogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea in women.”
Ehab also maintains an active practice on patent and trademark procurement, counseling and licensing. His patent experience encompasses a wide range of industries, including biomedical devices, electronics, computer architecture, computer networks, wireless and satellite communications, semiconductor devices, software and chemical processes/compositions. His trademark experience includes first-chairing a number of trademark opposition and petition-for-cancellation matters, managing trademark portfolios in excess of over 1,000 trademarks worldwide, and combating counterfeiting, cybersquatting and trademark squatting activities worldwide.
As an active bar leader, Ehab has served as President of the Orange County Intellectual Property Law Association (OCIPLA) and has chaired and/or served on several committees at the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), including Amicus, Professional Programs, Mid-Winter Institute, Education, New Lawyers, Membership, Nominations and the IP Law Associations Committees. He is a frequent lecturer at legal education seminars, including at the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), the AIPLA, the OCIPLA and the State Bar of California IP Section. Ehab has repeatedly been recognized as a “rising star” and a “super lawyer” in the field of intellectual property.
- The George Washington University, LL.M. in Intellectual Property, 2005
- The George Washington University, M.S. in Electrical Engineering, 2005
- Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology, J.D., 2002
- University of Illinois at Chicago, M.S. in Chemical Engineering, 2002
- University of Windsor, B.S., 1999
- Admitted to practice in the state of California and the District of Columbia
- Registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- President, Orange County Intellectual Property Law Association (OCIPLA), 2016–2017
- Member, Amicus Committee, American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2018-2021
- Member, Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association (LAIPLA), 2020-present
- Co-Chair, Patent Interest Group, California Lawyers Association
- Southern California Super Lawyers, 2014–2016
- Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Stars, 2009–2013
Nicor, Inc. v. SourceBlue LLC f/k/a Turner Construction et al. Represent SourceBlue and Infinilux in a patent case involving lighting technology. Case No. 2:21-cv-05876-AB(PDx)(C.D. Cal.)
Guangzhou Yucheng Trading Co., Ltd. v. dbest products, Inc. Represented dbest products in a declaratory judgment action filed by dbest’s Amazon competitor after Amazon agreed to take down its products, and successfully obtained a favorable summary judgment decision that the patent is infringed and not invalid, a jury verdict of willful infringement, and a post-trial judgment for treble damages, attorneys fees, costs and interest, and permanent injunction. Case No. 2:21-cv-04758 (C.D. Cal.)
TherapeuticsMD, Inc. v. Evofem Biosciences, Inc. Led a trial team of 10 attorneys in a heavily challenged and litigated case for client TherapeuticsMD, asserting trademark infringement and unfair competition claims against a competing pharmaceutical company. Case No. 20-82296-CIV-RUIZ (S.D. Fla.). After TherapeuticsMD prevailed on summary judgment, the case settled. Per Evofem’s SEC filing, “[o]n July 17, 2022, the Company settled the lawsuit with TherapeuticsMD pursuant to which the Company agreed to rebrand its product by July 2024 to coincide with its marketing objectives which may include the potential new indications for the prevention of urogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea in women.”
Neutrik AG v. ADJ Products LLC and Seetronic Ningbo Co. Ltd et al. Represented ADJ and Seetronic involving patents directed to data cable connectors for multichannel cable end plug. Case No. 2:19-CV-09937-JAK (C.D. Cal.).
Goobich v. Excelligence Learning Corporation. Represented plaintiff Joel Goobich in dispute over trade secret misappropriation and unpaid royalties for paint formulas that Mr. Goobich created. Case No. 19-cv-06771-EJD (N.D. Cal.)
Infinera Corp. v Core Optical Technologies, LLC. Successfully represented Patent Owner in Inter Partes Review proceeding at the PTAB and obtained a favorable decision denying institution on all grounds raised by Petitioner (IPR2018-01259, Paper 9, January 14, 2019).
Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. v. Ironburg Inventions, Ltd. Represented Patent Owner in four Inter Partes Review proceedings at the PTAB in connection with four U.S. Patents (IPR2018-00354, IPR2018-00355, IPR2018-00356, and IPR2018-00357), which led to a favorable settlement.
Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions, Ltd. Represented Patent Owner in six Inter Partes Review proceedings at the PTAB in connection with four U.S. Patents (IPR2016-00948, IPR2016-00949, IPR2017-00136, IPR2017-00137, IPR2017-00858, and IPR2017-01928), including related Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Appeal Nos. 2018-1432, -1731, -1783).
Core Optical Technologies, LLC v. Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. Represented plaintiff Core Optical in a patent infringement action involving optical communications, which led to favorable settlement terms. Case No. 8:16-CV-00437-AG-JPR (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. v Core Optical Technologies, LLC. Successfully represented Patent Owner in Inter Partes Review proceeding at the PTAB and obtained a favorable decision denying institution on all grounds raised by Petitioner (IPR2016-01618, Paper 13, January 31, 2017).
Zenith et al. v. Sceptre, Inc. Represented Sceptre involving patents directed to television tuners and decoders, and countersuing for antitrust violations for monopolizing allegedly ATSC standard essential patents and colluding to license them at unreasonable royalty rates in breach of their fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory obligations. Case No. LA CV14-05150 JAK (AJWx) (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Meggitt (Orange County) et al. v. Nie Yongzhong and Xiamen Niell Electronics Co. Ltd. Represented Meggitt in a case involving trade secret misappropriation and false advertising. Obtained a six-figure sanctions award against the defendants for discovery abuses, including dismissal of the defendants’ key affirmative defense, which led to favorable settlement terms. Case No. SACV 13-0239 DOC (DFMx) (C.D. Cal. 2015).
AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Medical, Inc. Represented AngioScore in a two-patent litigation involving angioplasty balloon catheters and methods for performing angioplasty in a blood vessel. Case No. 4:2012cv03393 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Belkin International, Inc., et al. Represented Belkin in a four-patent litigation relating to computer interconnection systems. Case No. 2:12-cv-01342-RSM (W.D. Wash. 2012).
Bird-B-Gone, Inc. v. Bird Barrier America, Inc. Represented Bird Barrier America, accused of infringing a patent directed to devices for deterring birds from landing or perching on a surface. Case No. SACV12-00178 AG (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. 2013).
In the matter of Certain Electronic Devices Having a Retractable USB Connector. Represented Olympus Corp. and Olympus Corp. of the Americas, accused of infringing a patent directed to retractable USB connectors, at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Inv. No. 337-TA-843 (USITC 2012).
Synthes (USA) et al. v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc. Represented Spinal Kinetics in seven cases, in the United States and in Germany, involving patents directed to intervertebral spinal implants, and obtained a jury verdict in the United States of invalidity and noninfringement, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and likewise obtained a favorable noninfringement decision of the German counterpart. Case No. 5:09-CV-01201 RMW (N.D. Cal. 2011-13) and Case No. 2013-1047, -1059 (Fed. Cir. 2013), among others.
Featured, Shopping Cart Co. Must Pay $2.2M In ‘Egregious’ Patent Case, Law360, Aug. 4, 2023.
Featured, Grocery Cart Maker Nets Willfulness Win in Patent Trial, Law360, Mar. 7, 2023.
Coauthor, “Blockchain Biting Point,” Intellectual Property Magazine, Nov. 1, 2017.
Coauthor, “Looking Through an IP Lens at Blockchain and Cryptocurrency,” Firm Newsletter, Sept. 28, 2017.
Author, “What The Defend Trade Secrets Act Means For Businesses,” Law360, May 11, 2016.
Author, “The New Battlefield: One Year of Inter Partes Review Under the America Invents Act,” AIPLA Quarterly Journal, April 2, 2014.
Featured, Synthes’ Spinal Implant Patent Invalid, Fed. Cir. Affirms, Law360, Oct. 29, 2013
Speaker, Anatomy of Trial – Issues in IP Cases, LAIPLA Spring Meeting, May 5, 2023.
Moderator, “Advocacy at the Federal Circuit, District Court and Patent Trial & Appeals Board,” LAIPLA Judges Night Gala, March 1, 2016. Speakers: Honorable Judge Taranto of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Honorable Judge Guilford and Honorable Judge Selna of the U.S. Central District Court of California, and Honorable Judge Chen of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board.
Speaker, “Post Grant Patent Review Proceedings – Statistics and Strategy,” North Carolina Bar Association – IP Section Annual Meeting, Charlotte, NC, March 21, 2014.
Speaker, “Impact of the Pending Innovation Act on Patent Litigation and Contested Post Grant Review Proceedings,” Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) Roundtable, Irvine, CA, Feb. 26, 2014.
Speaker, “The New Battlefield: Patent Proceedings Under the America Invents Act & Impact of Pending Innovation Act Legislation,” California Bar, Patent and In-House Counsel Interest Groups Webinar, Irvine, CA, Jan. 24, 2014.
Speaker, “AIA Post Grant Review Proceedings,” Orange County Patent Law Association (OCPLA), Irvine, CA, October 17, 2013.
Speaker, “The New Battlefield: One Year Review of Post-Grant Patent Review Under the America Invents Act,” AIPLA Webinar, Los Angeles, CA, October 9, 2013.
Speaker, “West LA Roundtable: The New Battlefield: One Year Review of Post-Grant Patent Review Under the America Invents Act,” Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) Roundtable, Los Angeles, CA, August 29, 2013.
Moderator, “Discussion of Strategies Under New Post-Grant Procedures – Choosing the Right Venue, Motions to Stay, Estoppel Issues, Impact on Federal Court Proceedings,” AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 25, 2012. Speakers: Honorable Paul R. Michel (Ret.), Chief Judge, Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. (Ret.) Farnan, LLP, and Honorable Nancy Linck, (Ret.) Administrative Patent Law Judge, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.