Samuel N. Tiu

Representative Cases:

• Bio-Rad Laboratories v. 10X Genomics (Cal. Superior Court) – Counsel for Bio-Rad in a trade secret misappropriation case against relating to miniaturized droplet microfluidics technology and chemical manufacturing process.
• FMC Corporation v. Summit Agro USA LLC et al. (ITC) – Trial counsel for Summit Agro, an affiliate of Sumitomo Corporation, before the U.S. International Trade Commission, in a patent case involving herbicides. After defeating FMC Corp.’s initial motion for temporary relief, Sam successfully secured a final determination of no Section 337 violation for his client on grounds of noninfringement, patent invalidity and lack of domestic industry.
• Genentech v. University of Pennsylvania (N.D. Cal.) – Instrumental in putting together key defenses for Genentech, in a patent infringement case relating to breast cancer treatment, involving potentially more than $1 billion in royalties. The case settled favorably for Genentech on the eve of trial obviating a three-week jury trial and a one-day bench trial on inequitable conduct.
• Briggs & Stratton v. Chongqing RATO Power, Co., Ltd. (N.D. NY.) – Counsel to Chongqing RATO Power Co. and its subsidiary, Denver Global Products, in its patent infringement defense against Briggs & Stratton, and successfully defeated invalidated Briggs & Stratton’s patents and its efforts to enjoin Denver Global Products’ multi-purpose vehicle.
• Koenig & Bauer v. Muhlbauer, Inc. (E.D. Va.) – Counsel to Koenig & Bauer in its enforcement action against Muhlbauer, Inc. Prevailed on all claims asserted by Koenig & Bauer, regarding infringement of patent relating to digital inspection systems.
• Pacesetter v. Cardiac Pacemakers (D. Minn.) – Represented Pacesetter in the enforcement of four patents relating to cardiac pacemakers and implantable defibrillators that led to a favorable cross-license agreement and global peace between the parties. 
• Ino Therapeutics, v. SensorMedics and Pulmonox (D. N.J.) – Successful dismissal of a patent infringement claim for SensorMedics and Pulmonox relating to pharmaceutical nitric oxide delivery and secured a highly favorable settlement through the prosecution of antitrust counterclaims against the patentee. 
• USA Video Technology v. Time Warner Cable (E.D. Tex) – Counsel to Time Warner Cable and secured an early summary judgment of non-infringement before substantial discovery in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Sitrick v. DreamWorks and Warner Bros. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented DreamWorks and Warner Bros. in successfully invalidating two patents relating to computer graphics for video games and movies by way of summary judgment and affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
• USA Video Technology v. Movielink (D. Del) – Successfully obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Movielink. Judgment upheld on appeal.

ITC Section 337 Cases:

• In re Certain Sulfentrazone, Sulfentrazone Compositions, and Processes for Making Sulfentrazone Inv. No.: 337-TA-914 – Counsel for respondents Summit Agro in a patent suit concerning herbicide chemical composition and processes. Temporary relief bench trial in 2014 and full hearing in 2015.
• In re Certain Rubber Resins, Inv. No. 337-TA-849 – Counsel for Sino Legend in a trade secret case involving industrial manufacturing process for phenolic resins and tackifiers. Successfully invalidated a majority of the asserted trade secrets and guided client in successful re-design.
• In re Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-617 – Represented AmTRAN, VIZIO, and Proview, three of the respondents in patent suit concerning digital televisions. Bench trial in 2008. 

• American Bar Association 
• National Asian Pacific American Bar Association 
• Intellectual Property Law Association of Los Angeles