Robert Buergi

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

Let me verify a few key tracked cases and the PTAB activity.

One more check on an appellate outcome before writing.

Robert Buergi — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Robert Buergi is a partner in DLA Piper's patent litigation group, working out of the firm's Silicon Valley (East Palo Alto/Palo Alto) and Houston offices. His practice centers on electronics and software patent disputes, with technology areas spanning streaming video and content delivery, wireless protocols (Wi-Fi/WLAN, LTE, 3GPP), touchscreens and display hardware, cybersecurity and encryption, operating systems and file systems, graphical user interfaces, processor power management, and hard disk drive components. He has represented clients in district courts nationwide, the ITC, the PTAB and the Federal Circuit, and the firm describes him as a former engineer with roughly 20 years of patent litigation experience. (DLA Piper profile)

Side profile. The tracked appearances are split 8 defense / 6 plaintiff, and the underlying record shows a defense-heavy core with a recurring plaintiff-side role for the same operating-company clients. On defense he represents large technology companies against NPE/PAE assertions — Samsung (Softvault, Nazomi, Maxell), Apple (Aylus, VideoLabs, Wi-LAN, Immersion-related IPRs), HP and Microsoft (Neodron), Trend Micro (CUPP Cybersecurity, Prism), Adobe/Oracle, and NXP (ITC). His plaintiff-side work is largely declaratory-judgment and offensive patent litigation for those same corporate clients — e.g., Samsung as plaintiff against Maxell and SpaceTime3D, Samsung Electronics et al. v. SpaceTime3D, Overland Storage in an ITC action, Hutchinson Technology against Suncall, and Trend Micro against RPost. He does not appear to represent NPEs/PAEs as asserting parties.

PTAB/IPR experience. He is a regular PTAB practitioner and is registered to prosecute before the USPTO (Reg. No. 58,125). Verifiable proceedings include Apple v. Aylus Networks (IPR2014-01565, RE44,412), where he was backup counsel and presented at the December 2015 oral hearing; Apple v. Immersion Corp. (IPR2017-01310, backup counsel); Samsung/Lenovo/HP v. Neodron (IPR2020-00192); Samsung v. SpaceTime3D (IPR2020-01417, terminated on settlement before institution); and Samsung Electronics v. Maxell, where he appears as petitioner counsel in the 2025 IPR filings (e.g., IPR2025-01312), including Fintiv/§314(a) discretionary-denial briefing.

Notable matters. Among tracked matters, the most prominent are the Samsung–Maxell disputes — a ten-patent E.D. Tex. case involving video processing, multimedia and inter-device communications, litigated in parallel with PTAB challenges — and Samsung Electronics et al. v. SpaceTime3D (GUI patents, IPR settled pre-institution). In VideoLabs, Inc. v. Apple (N.D. Cal. 2023), where he was Apple's counsel, the action was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation in October 2023 (no liability or validity ruling; each side bore its own fees). Firm-reported results include prevailing on 14 of 17 patents before trial in CUPP Cybersecurity v. Trend Micro, a dismissal without trial or settlement for NXP in the Daedalus Prime ITC action, a with-prejudice dismissal without settlement in TrueMail v. iContact, and summary judgment and jury verdicts of non-infringement affirmed on appeal in smartphone video-streaming matters. Note that one matter he worked on went the other way: in Wi-LAN v. Apple (S.D. Cal.), final judgment entered in June 2020 awarded Wi-LAN roughly $85.2 million plus about $23.7 million in prejudgment interest on two patents, and Apple noticed an appeal; I could not independently verify the appellate outcome.

Bar/education. Admitted in California (2006) and Texas, and registered with the USPTO; J.D., Santa Clara University School of Law (2005), M.S., Stanford University, and B.S., University of New Mexico. Firm website and state bar records place him at DLA Piper (US) throughout his litigation career; no prior-firm history is documented in the sources reviewed, and the third-party profiles listing him as an "associate" appear to be outdated relative to the firm's current partner designation.