Ali Tehrani

Representative Industries

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

• Automotive systems, including electronics and mechanics
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer software, cloud computing, and mobile applications
• Telecommunication and networking products
• Mobile devices and touch screens
• Digital cameras and lenses
• Consumer electronics
• Electrical products and fittings
• Automated high-precision, high-speed die bonding and epoxy dispensing systems
• Positive Train Control systems
• Defense systems
• Cryptographic systems
• Ecommerce and consumer products
• Banking and investments
• Health care, electronic health records, 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

• Janssen Prods., L.P. v. Evenus Pharms. Labs. Inc., No. 22-2426 (3d Cir.): Won dismissal of appeal from denial of an ex parte seizure order, setting new law that ex parte seizure orders under the DTSA are not immediately appealable and that three decades of law regarding the appealability of seizure orders in trademark cases does not apply to the DTSA. Won oral argument in underlying district court case on separate issue regarding a trade secrets dispute.
• 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. Wonalso 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.
• MRSI Systems, LLC v. Palomar Technologies, Inc., No. 19-cv-02344 (S.D. Cal.): Won patent dispute involving die, wire, and wedge bonder systems.
• 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.
• Infogation Corporation v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, No. 2:23-cv-00358 (E.D. Tex.): Won complete dismissal with prejudice and with no payment from BMW in patent dispute involving navigation systems.
• Infogation Corporation v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00304 (E.D. Tex.): Won complete dismissal with prejudice and with no payment from BMW in patent dispute involving navigation systems.
• Display Technologies, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 6:21-cv-01214 (W.D. Tex.): Won voluntary dismissal in patent dispute involving Bluetooth technologies.
• Voltstar Technologies, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 0:23-cv-61959 (S.D. Fla.): Won voluntary dismissal in patent dispute involving mobile device charging technologies.
• Callstat Solutions LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00914 (W.D. Tex.): Won voluntary dismissal in patent dispute involving cellular products and related FRAND issues.  
• DATREC, LLC v. Meditab Software, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex.): Won voluntary dismissal in patent dispute involving medical software technology.

Prior Representative Engagements

• Terrestrial Comms LLC v. NEC Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-01620 (N.D. Tex.): Successfully represented NEC in patent dispute involving networking products.
• Avayla Licensing LLC v. NEC Corporation, No. 2:22-cv-00459 (E.D. Tex.): Successfully represented Lenovo in patent dispute involving video conferencing technology.
• Vibrant Licensing LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al, No. 1:22-cv-00125 (D. Del.): Successfully represented Lenovo in patent dispute involving cellular products and touch screens.
• Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Leica Camera Inc., No. 2:22-cv-06226 (D.N.J.): Successfully represented Leica in patent dispute involving digital camera technologies.
• Ranging Optics, LLC v. Leica Camera AG et al, No. 2:21-cv-07245 (C.D. Cal.): Successfully represented Leica in patent dispute involving rangefinder technologies.
• 2BCOM, LLC v. Logitech Inc., No. 3:21-cv-04605 (N.D. Cal.): Successfully represented Logitech in patent dispute involving networking products and related FRAND issues.
• Terrestrial Comms LLC v. Logitech Inc., No. 2:20-cv-09728 (C.D. Cal.): Successfully represented Logitech in patent dispute involving networking products.
• LifeNet Health v. RTI Surgical, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00146 (N.D. Fla.): Successfully represented 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.): Successfully represented Lonza in patent infringement action involving induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).
• 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): Won for 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.
• 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.
• 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.): 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.): 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.): 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.): Won dismissal of an untimely interlocutory appeal for Arlington Industries.

• IP Star by Managing IP: Rising Star, 2024
• Lawyers Alliance for New York: Cornerstone Awards, 2023