Indranil Mukerji

I'll research this attorney's professional background and verify the tracked cases.

Let me gather more detail on the specific cases and outcomes.

Let me verify a few more details on notable outcomes and firm history.

Professional Summary — Indranil ("Indy") Mukerji

Specialty / focus. Mukerji's practice is concentrated in high-technology patent litigation — semiconductors and microprocessors, mobile devices and operating systems, wireless networking (including LTE/5G and standards-essential patents), streaming and video processing, data storage and DRAM, lithium-ion batteries, enterprise security, and e-commerce. He has also handled non-electronics subject matter, including chemical/insecticide, oil-and-gas equipment, and medical device cases, and has a life-sciences engineering background (B.S./M.E., Cornell) that predates his litigation career. He litigates in district courts nationwide, before the ITC under Section 337, and on appeal at the Federal Circuit. Note that the "nearly 200 patent cases" and "billions in liability demands" figures come from firm/Covington-provided bio language and rankings submissions, not from an independent tally.

Side preference. The authoritative case list shows 1 plaintiff-side and 2 defendant-side appearances, and the broader public record is consistent with a defense-leaning practice: he is described by Chambers as "frequently defending large tech companies against multiple allegations [of] patent infringement" and by Covington as representing major tech companies "against competitors, non-practicing entities (NPEs), and patent assertion entities (PAEs)." The one plaintiff-side tracked entry is Netflix, Inc. v. VideoLabs, Inc., which is a PTAB caption (Netflix as petitioner) rather than a district-court infringement suit — in the parallel Delaware litigation VideoLabs was the plaintiff and Netflix the defendant. He does appear for petitioners as well as patent owners in PTAB matters, so the practice is best characterized as primarily defense-side for operating companies, with offensive nullity work through IPRs.

Firm context. He joined Covington & Burling as a partner in its Washington, DC office in October 2024, following roughly four years at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, where he led the tech patent litigation practice group. Before Willkie he spent about 15 years at IP boutique Fish & Richardson, and earlier practiced at Nutter McClennen & Fish, the now-defunct Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, and Wall Marjama & Bilinski (including a stint as managing partner). He is a partner, not in-house counsel.

Notable cases and outcomes. Verifiable highlights include 01 Communique Laboratory v. Citrix Systems (N.D. Ohio) — a January 19, 2016 jury verdict of non-infringement for Citrix, with Mukerji as co-lead trial counsel, in a case where roughly $80 million in damages plus willfulness enhancement was sought; and Williamson v. Citrix Online (Fed. Cir. en banc, June 16, 2015), where he was on the Fish team that persuaded the Federal Circuit to revisit the treatment of functional claim language — a decision recognized as "Milestone Case of the Year" by Managing Intellectual Property. He is listed on Netflix's power of attorney as back-up counsel in Netflix v. VideoLabs (IPR2023-00628, U.S. Patent 7,233,790), where institution was granted, and the related IPR2023-00630 over the '559 patent ended in a Board finding of unpatentability affirmed by the Federal Circuit on August 10, 2026 in VL Collective IP, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. His earlier docket work includes Lexington Luminance LED-patent defense for Amazon and Qualcomm/Apple matters. The two "untitled" tracked matters cannot be fully verified from the case list; public dockets show him among Covington counsel for the defense in a 2026 Wapp Tech v. Apple patent action in the Southern District of California, which is a plausible match for the Covington defendant-side entry, but I cannot confirm that identification.

PTAB / IPR experience. Yes — he is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 46,944) who appears regularly before the PTAB. He has served as lead counsel on multiple IPR petitions (e.g., LG Electronics and Sony Electronics petitions against Jawbone Innovations, IPR2023-01110/-01119/-01127/-01154/-01166/-01222) and has argued at PTAB oral hearings dating back to at least IPR2014-00553.

Bar / education. J.D., Boston University School of Law (1999); B.S. (1995) and M.E. (1996) in engineering, Cornell University. Admitted in Massachusetts (Bar No. 644059) and the District of Columbia (Bar No. 974398, licensed in DC since 2007).