Ali Tehrani

Representative Industries

Ali has represented a wide range of domestic and international clients across a variety of industries, including:

• Computer software, cloud computing, and mobile applications
• Cryptographic systems
• Consumer electronics
• Electrical products and fittings
• Automated high-precision, high-speed die bonding and epoxy dispensing systems
• Automotive systems
• Positive Train Control systems
• Defense systems
• Telecommunication services
• Ecommerce and consumer products
• Banking and investments
• Health care, insurance, and reinsurance
• Thermoplastic materials
• Medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and nutritional supplements
• Hotels and hospitality services
• Fashion and films / motion pictures

District Courts

Significant Recent Wins

• Palomar Technologies, Inc. v. MRSI Systems, LLC, No. 18-cv-10236 (D. Mass.): Won case dispositive summary judgment of invalidity, holding that the asserted patent is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Won also first-ever bench trial on the issue of IPR estoppel, holding MRSI is not estopped from asserting key prior art references. Representing MRSI in patent infringement action relating to automated, high-precision, high-speed die bonding systems used in telecom / datacom (data center), aerospace & defense, medical devices, computers and peripherals, and industrial applications.
• Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, No. 16-cv-00284 (D. Del.): Won a jury trial and a $15 million damages award for Siemens in a wide-ranging, multi-forum IP dispute involving Positive Train Control technology. 
• Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 06-cv-1105 (M.D. Pa.): Won summary judgment of infringement and summary judgment of damages close to $1.1 million for Arlington Industries in patent infringement action involving electrical connectors.
• Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 02-cv-0134 (M.D. Pa.): Won contempt proceeding and obtained judgment of infringement with damages in the amount of over $2.3 million for Arlington Industries in patent infringement action involving electrical connectors.

Ongoing Representative Engagements

• Palomar Technologies, Inc. v. MRSI Systems, LLC, No. 18-cv-10236 (D. Mass.): Representing MRSI in patent infringement action involving automated, high-precision, high-speed die bonding systems used in telecom / datacom (data center), aerospace & defense, medical devices, computers and peripherals, and industrial applications. 
• MRSI Systems, LLC v. Palomar Technologies, Inc., No. 19-cv-02344 (S.D. Cal.): Representing MRSI in patent infringement action involving die, wire, and wedge bonder systems.
• LifeNet Health v. RTI Surgical, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00146 (N.D. Fla.): Representing LifeNet in patent infringement action involving composite bone graft and soft tissue graft technology. 
• Cellular Dynamics International, Inc. et al. v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc., No. 17-cv-02713 (D. Md.): Representing Lonza in patent infringement action involving induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).

Prior Representative Engagements

• InnoBrilliance, LLC v. Rekor Recognition Systems, Inc., No. 8:19-cv-02334 (S.D. Cal.): Successfully represented Rekor in patent infringement action involving license plate recognition systems. 
• The Regents of the University of California v. St. Jude Medical, LLC, No. 16-cv-06210 (N.D. Cal.): Successfully represented The Regents in medical device patent infringement action involving radiofrequency ablation catheters and pulmonary vein isolation procedures.
• The Regents of the University of California v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 16-cv-06266 (N.D. Cal.): Successfully represented The Regents in medical device patent infringement action involving radiofrequency ablation catheters and pulmonary vein isolation procedures.
• The Regents of the University of California v. AtriCure, Inc., No. 16-cv-06506 (N.D. Cal.): Successfully represented The Regents in medical device patent infringement action involving radiofrequency ablation catheters and pulmonary vein isolation procedures.
• Arlington Industries, Inc. v. PlyGem Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 16-cv-00069 (N.D. Cal.): Successfully represented Arlington Industries in patent infringement action.
• DataMotion Texas, LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 15-cv-01721 (E.D. Tex.): Successfully represented Citigroup in patent infringement action involving cryptographic security systems.
• Spark Networks USA, LLC v. Smooch Labs, Inc., No. 14-cv-9027 (S.D.N.Y.): Successfully represented Spark (owner of JDate) in patent and trademark infringement action against defendant (owner of the smartphone application JSwipe).
• Secure Axcess, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 13-cv-717 (E.D. Tex.): Successfully represented U.S. Bank and T. Rowe Price against patent infringement allegations.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

• RTI Surgical, Inc. v. LifeNet Health, Nos. IPR20019-00569, -00573 (PTAB): Representing patent owner LifeNet Health in IPR proceedings involving composite bone graft and soft tissue graft technology.
• Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. v. Arlington Industries, Inc., No. PGR2018-00005 (PTAB): Won by obtaining denial of institution on all petitioned grounds for patent owner Arlington Industries in post-grant proceeding involving electrical connector technology.
• St. Jude Medical, LLC v. The Regents of the University of California, Nos. IPR2017-01338, -01339 (PTAB): Won by obtaining dismissal of petitions for patent owner The Regents in IPR proceedings involving technology related to pulmonary vein isolation.
• T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc. v. Secure Axcess, LLC, No. CBM2015-00027 (PTAB):  Successfully instituted a Covered Business Method Review on behalf of T. Rowe Price.

International Trade Commission

• Certain Vehicular Smart Watch Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-932 (ITC):  Won by obtaining complainant’s voluntary dismissal in ITC and district court for General Motors Company and OnStar in patent infringement case involving a smartwatch-based mobile app for controlling vehicle security and diagnostics functions.
• Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123 (ITC):  Successfully represented MTD Products in ITC proceeding involving hand-held outdoor equipment.
• Certain Radio Frequency Microneedle Dermatological Treatment Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1112 (ITC):  Successfully represented Lumenis and Pollogen in ITC proceeding involving radio frequency skin treatment devices.        

Appellate Courts

• Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. v. Arlington Industries, Inc., No. 2015-1616, -1617 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17.2016): Won consolidated appeals for Arlington Industries from inter partes reexaminations, affirming the validity of two patents involving electrical connector technology.
• Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 2014-1633 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2015): Won affirmance of the district court’s claim construction, judgment of patent infringement, contempt of injunction, and award of attorneys’ fees for Arlington Industries. 
• Better Food Choices, LLC v. Weight Watchers International, Inc., No. 2015-1304 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2015): Won affirmance of the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's patent infringement action for Weight Watchers. 
• Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 2013-1357 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 17, 2014): Won dismissal of an untimely interlocutory appeal for Arlington Industries.