Erin Paige Gibson

I'll research this attorney's professional background before writing the summary.

Let me dig into her background, education, and PTAB/IPR experience.

Let me verify the VideoLabs case details and the notable verdicts.

Erin Paige Gibson — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus. Gibson's practice is concentrated in patent litigation and Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), where she is chair of DLA Piper's ITC practice. Her docket skews heavily toward technology and electronics rather than life sciences or pharma: consumer electronics and smartphones, semiconductors and memory (DDR3 memory in Smart Modular v. Netlist; touchscreen mobile devices in Neodron v. Microsoft/HP), wireless/communications (Broadcom v. Qualcomm), computer hardware and software (HP matters), video/streaming codecs, printing technology, and materials/mechanical subject matter such as printed circuit boards and sintered neodymium magnets in power-tool motors. One tracked matter, VideoLabs v. Apple, was a patent-licensing entity suit over video content-synchronization and touchscreen/FPC patents.

Side preference. The authoritative case list shows two tracked appearances, both defendant-side for Apple, with zero plaintiff-side appearances — matching her public profile as a defense-side trial lawyer for large technology companies in district court and as first-chair counsel for ITC respondents. That said, the record is not purely defense: firm materials describe her as having helped win a complete plaintiff's verdict for Isola (an operating-company complainant) including willful infringement and lost profits, and she has represented patent owners such as Ricoh, Isola, and Netlist. There is no indication she regularly represents NPEs/PAEs on the assertion side.

Firm context. She is a partner at DLA Piper (US), based in Washington, DC (with prior filings out of the firm's San Diego and Silicon Valley offices), and serves as US Chair and Global Co-Chair of the firm's Intellectual Property and Technology practice and Chair of its ITC practice. Her filings in this capacity date back to at least 2011 (e.g., Emblaze v. Apple, N.D. Cal.), and no prior law firm or in-house role is reliably sourced in public records.

Notable cases and IPR/PTAB posture. The tracked VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC v. Apple Inc. matter (N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-01307) was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on October 6, 2023, roughly six months after filing; the two entries in the case list appear to reflect the same underlying action. Other reported results include summary judgment for HP in Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard, a defense verdict in what firm bio describes as a US$500 million patent jury trial, an ITC walk-away for NXP Semiconductors in April 2024 after the complaint was withdrawn days before trial, and ITC work in Ind. 337-TA-1162 (Neodron) and 337-TA-855 (Hitachi v. Milwaukee/Techtronic). Patexia's 2026 ITC report ranked her the #1 most active and #1 best-performing attorney representing respondents. Her PTAB work is not well documented publicly — the materials found show related inter partes reexamination/PTAB activity in Smart Modular v. Netlist, but her profile is ITC- and district-court-centric, and I found no reliable evidence that she personally argues IPR/PGR proceedings on a regular basis.

Bar / education. Admitted in California (State Bar No. 229305) and the District of Columbia; J.D., University of San Diego School of Law (2003).