Etai Lahav

Attorney Summary: Etai Lahav

Specialty / focus. Lahav is an intellectual-property litigator whose docket is concentrated on solid-state lighting and semiconductor patent disputes. His tracked matters all arise from the LED lighting industry (lightbulbs, LED tubes, lighting structures and packages), and his broader web-searchable practice extends to UV-LED devices, LED drivers, optical components (wavelength-selective switches), and semiconductor processing. Representative technology-heavy matters include LED patent wars among Feit Electric, Savant Technologies/GE Lighting, Seoul Semiconductor, SETi, Nitride Semiconductors, and WAC Lighting, as well as optical and semiconductor cases (Finisar, ZOND v. Intel, Mears Technologies).

Side preference. Lahav works both sides in roughly equal measure. Of his seven tracked appearances, four were plaintiff-side and three defendant-side, all at Radulescu. His practice includes offensive assertion work for patent owners such as Seoul Semiconductor, SETi, Nitride Semiconductors, and WAC Lighting, alongside defensive representation of accused manufacturers/operating companies such as Feit Electric and WAC Lighting against Philips/Signify and Super Lighting. His firm bio lists ITC Section 337 work, multiple district-court actions, and Federal Circuit appeals.

Firm context and notable matters. Lahav is a partner at Radulescu LLP (New York), the boutique IP litigation firm founded by David C. Radulescu; no earlier firm affiliations surfaced in well-sourced records. He has been with the firm since at least 2013–2014 based on court filings. Prominent matters include the LED ITC investigation Signify/Philips v. Wangs Alliance (WAC Lighting) (Inv. 337-TA-1081), related Philips v. WAC Lighting litigation in the District of Massachusetts, and multiple Federal Circuit appeals (e.g., Mears Technologies, 16-1485; Finisar, 17-1649; Wangs Alliance v. Philips, 17-1527–1532; Fiber, LLC v. Ciena, 19-1005). No reported verdict or settlement in his specifically tracked cases could be independently verified, so outcomes should not be overstated.

PTAB/IPR experience; bar and education. Lahav appears regularly before the PTAB, but virtually always as back-up/pro hac vice counsel alongside a registered lead, in dozens of IPRs — including WAC Lighting v. Philips, Everlight v. Bridgelux, Satco v. Seoul Semiconductor, SETi/Lite-On UV-LED IPRs, and Intel v. Institute of Microelectronics. He is admitted in New York (2007), including the SDNY, EDNY, and E.D. Tex., and holds a J.D. from Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (2006); he does not appear to be a USPTO-registered practitioner himself based on available filings.