Charan J. Sandhu

I'll research this attorney before drafting the summary.

Let me verify the tracked case and look for any litigation-specific detail.

Let me check whether this attorney appears in the IPR filings and confirm identity.

Charan J. Sandhu — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. Sandhu is based in Weil's New York office, where she is Head (formerly Co-Head) of the firm's Technology & IP Transactions practice and a member of its Privacy & Cybersecurity group. Her publicly described practice centers on the intellectual-property side of complex technology transactions — patent and technology licenses, IP acquisitions and divestitures, joint ventures, strategic alliances, outsourcing, and, notably, settlements of IP litigation — with a technology span covering consumer electronics, computer hardware and software, semiconductors and manufacturing equipment, communications/networking and telephony, and the Internet, plus biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices (Chambers USA; Legal 500). Her single tracked patent matter involves wireless device-to-device file sharing (Bluetooth discovery + Wi-Fi transfer), i.e., consumer-device wireless communications rather than pharma or mechanical arts.

Side preference. The tracked data show exactly one appearance, and it is on the plaintiff/petitioner side — Microsoft Corporation et al. v. InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., with Weil as counsel. That single data point should not be over-read. Her broader verified profile is as an operating-company-side advisor (Microsoft, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Applied Biosystems, Bio-Rad, CareDx, Pacific Biosciences and others appear among clients/highlights), and Legal 500 describes her as "a trusted advisor in the patent licensing and settlement context." There is no evidence in the sources reviewed that she represents NPEs/PAEs; the only tracked patent case has her aligned with an operating company asserting against a licensing-focused patent holder.

Firm context. She has been at Weil, Gotshal & Manges throughout the period covered by public sources; no prior-firm history was located in the materials reviewed. She is not in-house. Court and ranking directories describe her as a Weil partner and practice head, while the tracked docket entry lists her role as "Counsel."

Notable matters and outcomes. The tracked matter is the Microsoft v. InterDigital Patent Holdings dispute, which in the PTAB (IPR2024-00305/-00306 and related petitions, filed Dec. 2023–Feb. 2024) challenged InterDigital's '933 and '054 "Data Transfer Between Wireless Devices" patents; the Board's June 23, 2025 final written decision in IPR2024-00306 found the challenged claims unpatentable, InterDigital's Director Review request was denied (Aug. 28, 2025), and a notice of appeal followed. Note: the public PTAB filings identify Klarquist as petitioner-side counsel of record in those proceedings, and I could not independently verify Sandhu's name on the IPR papers; her tracked appearance may relate to the parallel district court/ITC track rather than the IPRs themselves. Other results are practice-level, not individual: a Federal Circuit appeal (for Synthego) affirming invalidation of two competitor patents including all 63 claims; a $25 million patent-litigation settlement and license for PDL Biopharma with Alexion over antibody-humanization patents; and defense of Bio-Rad Laboratories in two ChromaCode digital-PCR suits in N.D. Cal.

PTAB / IPR experience. Weil is ranked nationally for PTAB litigation, and the practice she heads has PTAB-appeal work (Synthego). The sources reviewed do not show her as a recurring first-chair PTAB practitioner; her PTAB exposure appears episodic, tied to the Microsoft–InterDigital petitions and related appeals.

Bar / education. New York bar (Super Lawyers lists New York admission); UC Berkeley (B.S., 1993) and Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1998), per Chambers and Legal 500.

Identity note: All sources above describe a single Weil attorney named Charan J. Sandhu (she/her), so no same-name disambiguation appears necessary, but her documented profile is predominantly transactional-IP rather than a traditional patent-litigation trial practice — worth confirming with the docket entry underlying the tracked appearance.