Eric E. Lancaster

I'll research this attorney's professional background before drafting.

Eric E. Lancaster — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. Lancaster is a Palo Alto–based partner in Paul Hastings' Intellectual Property practice, with a litigation practice spanning district courts, the ITC, the PTAB, and state courts. His technology coverage is broad rather than narrowly specialized: Paul Hastings and firm-move coverage describe work in medical devices, pharmaceuticals, software, social networking, mobile devices, semiconductors, LCDs, computer hardware, and computer graphics software, plus related antitrust and BPCIA matters. His three most recent tracked appearances all concern medical-device/sleep-disorder diagnostics and treatment (CPAP and sleep apnea) patents owned by Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc. — a good indication that medtech is a current emphasis alongside his longer-standing software/semiconductor work.

Side preference. The tracked counts (2 plaintiff / 1 defendant) understate the defense tilt of his practice. His clients have been operating companies — Google, ResMed, Meta, Toshiba, Realtek, Marvell, DreamWorks, Sony Pictures Imageworks, Anthem, and others — and his plaintiff-side appearances are largely offensive patent-office challenges (ResMed and Unified Patents as petitioners), not NPE/PAE contingency work. Federal court records also place him on the defense side for Google in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. Firm materials list both plaintiff and defense trial results, including a plaintiff's jury verdict of validity and infringement with a permanent injunction in the District of Delaware. Net: he works both sides but the client base is operating companies, with a defense-leaning docket.

Firm context. Lancaster joined Paul Hastings in March 2024 as part of a six-partner, tech-focused IP litigation team recruited from Allen & Overy (Reuters; Paul Hastings announcement). Before A&O, he was at White & Case, from which he and seven other partners moved in 2021 to launch A&O's Silicon Valley and San Francisco offices; he served as managing partner of those two offices. His Super Lawyers listing reflects the White & Case period. He has been listed in IAM Patent 1000 (Bronze, California) and has taught Antitrust and Innovation as an adjunct at UC Berkeley School of Law.

Notable matters and PTAB/IPR experience. Firm-reported results include a complete ITC Section 337 win for InnoLux/Chi Mei entities on all five asserted LCD patents, affirmed by the Federal Circuit; a complete defense jury verdict of non-infringement and invalidity in a CAD software case; and summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims in a social networking patent case. Post-grant work is substantial: he was on the Allen & Overy/Paul Hastings team that invalidated seven NYU patents asserted against ResMed at the USPTO (IPR2022-00988 through -00992, et al., per Global Legal Post), and he is back-up or pro hac vice counsel on the 2025 ResMed IPR/reexam campaign against Cleveland Medical Devices (IPR2025-00157, -00158, -00159, -00160, -00246, -00247), where the Board denied institution on at least one petition (IPR2025-00157, June 10, 2025) on discretionary follow-on grounds. He also appears as back-up counsel in PTAB proceedings for Meta (IPR2023-00058) and an Activision-related petition. Note he appears pro hac vice in PTAB matters rather than as a registered practitioner; lead counsel on those filings is a registered attorney.

Bar / education. Member, State Bar of California (No. 244449), admitted 2006; admitted in the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California and the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. B.A. in Economics and B.S. in Chemistry, UC Davis (2002); J.D., Santa Clara University School of Law (2006).

Caveat: the tracked docket shows the same Unified Patents v. Cleveland Medical Devices caption with Lancaster listed on both the plaintiff and defendant sides; I could not verify from public sources why the same case appears with two roles, so that entry should be treated as unconfirmed beyond the docket itself.