Fabio Elia Marino

I'll research this attorney before writing.

Fabio Elia Marino — patent litigation practice summary

Specialty / focus. Marino is a first-chair IP trial lawyer whose patent work skews heavily technical: computer networking and telecommunications (server load balancing, high-availability routing, Wi-Fi/cellular call handoff), software and web technologies, semiconductors and memory (flash, DRAM, DDR DIMM modules), display/graphics technologies, and (per firm bios) AI and medical imaging. His publicized docket is largely computer-networking patent litigation — Brocade v. A10 Networks, Radware v. F5 and v. A10, Diablo v. Netlist, MLC v. Micron, Aspen Networks, Phenix Longhorn, and iCharts v. Tableau. He also litigates trade secret and copyright claims (e.g., Niantic v. Global++, DAG Ammo) and, per his firm bio, argues appeals at the Federal Circuit. He was a software architect before law practice.

Side preference. The tracked dataset shows a single plaintiff-side lead-counsel entry (the case name field is blank, so it cannot be matched to a specific matter on the current data). That count substantially understates his public record in both directions: public dockets and firm materials show him representing operating companies on defense — Radware, Diablo Technologies, Brocade/Foundry, Micron, Lonati, and Niantic (individual defendants) — while also acting as plaintiff's counsel for patent holders and funded plaintiffs such as Aspen Networks, Phenix Longhorn, iCharts, and MLC. The practical read is a two-sided practice, not a dedicated NPE/PAE or captive-defense shop, with recent years weighted toward plaintiff-side assertion work. IAM Patent 1000 notes he is "regularly enlisted to bring and defend high-value claims."

Firm context. He has been a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP since January 2022, based in the firm's Silicon Valley office (Sunnyvale/Menlo Park). Before that he spent roughly four years at Polsinelli, where he chaired the IP and technology litigation practice, served as vice chair of the IP department, and managed the Silicon Valley and San Francisco offices; earlier he was a partner at McDermott Will & Emery and at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. He is not in-house.

Notable matters and results. The most prominent current matter is Aspen Networks, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless), No. 2:23-cv-00557 (E.D. Tex., Judge Schroeder), where an Eastern District of Texas jury on June 19, 2026 found Verizon infringed all six asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,009,554 (VoWi-Fi call handoff) and awarded $190 million — reported as the largest patent damages award of Q2 2026; parallel cases against AT&T and T-Mobile remain pending. Other verified results: Brocade v. A10 Networks (N.D. Cal.), a three-week trial yielding liability findings for patent, copyright, and trade secret infringement, a $60M copyright award, and permanent injunctions (the court later granted a new trial on patent damages under the entire-market-value rule); Radware v. F5 (N.D. Cal.), a unanimous jury verdict for Radware with a willfulness finding, followed by a $6.9M judgment and permanent injunction; and Diablo v. Netlist (N.D. Cal.), where the jury awarded Netlist only $2 nominal on Lanham Act claims instead of the $6.5M sought, and the court lifted the injunction against Diablo's chip sales.

PTAB / IPR. He does appear in AIA proceedings — he argued as petitioner's counsel for Diablo Technologies at the PTAB oral hearing in the consolidated IPRs IPR2014-00882, -00883, and -01011 (flash-memory patents challenged over Amidi-based combinations) — and he currently publishes on PTAB practice, including the USPTO's 2025 bifurcated discretionary-denial procedures. His PTAB activity is real but, on the available public record, less voluminous than his district court practice.

Bar / education. Admitted to the State Bar of California in 1996 (Bar No. 183825); J.D., UC Hastings College of the Law (now UC College of the Law, San Francisco); M.S. in computer science, UCLA; B.S. in computer science, cum laude, University of Pennsylvania.

Caveat: the structured appearance data supplied for this profile contains only one unnamed plaintiff-side entry, so it should not be read as a complete picture of his litigation history; the case-level descriptions above come from firm publications, docket records, and legal-press reporting rather than the tracked list.