Sean San-Chul Pak

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

Let me verify the tracked Proxense cases and PTAB activity.

Let me verify the third tracked matter and Proxense v. Samsung outcome.

Sean San-Chul Pak — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus areas. Pak's practice centers on high-stakes technology patent litigation, with particular depth in consumer electronics, semiconductors, cellular/wireless standards, and computer hardware and software. His engineering background (electrical engineering and computer science) has been cited as the reason he handles technically complex subject matter ranging from cellular patents asserted against smartphone lines to MEMS gyroscopes, cancer-treatment/radiotherapy devices, and broadband satellite technology. In the tracked matters, the Proxense assertions concern biometric authentication and "personal digital key" / passwordless identity technology. He is also a founding member of Quinn Emanuel's AI practice group and reportedly advises on the intersection of artificial intelligence and IP.

Side preference. The authoritative case list is entirely defendant-side: 3 tracked appearances, all as counsel for defendants, most often as lead or co-lead counsel. Consistent with that, his most-publicized recent results are defense wins for Google and Samsung. Web-searchable practice descriptions, however, characterize him as litigating "on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants," and his firm bio describes substantial plaintiff-side work (e.g., Qualcomm's global campaign against Apple, ViaSat, STMicroelectronics), so the tracked defendant skew likely reflects the cases captured in this dataset rather than a strict one-sided practice.

Firm context. Pak has been a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan since 2009 and is based in the firm's San Francisco office, where he is Co-Chair of the National IP Litigation Practice and a founding member of the AI Practice Group. All tracked appearances list Quinn Emanuel. (Earlier career firms are not clearly established in the sources reviewed.)

Notable cases and outcomes. Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal.) — Pak's team secured a complete defense win for Google, obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity and, on post-trial briefing, invalidating patents underlying a $32.5M verdict; Judge Alsup's ruling turned on prosecution laches, and the team was named American Lawyer "Litigators of the Week" (2023). Evolved Wireless LLC v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex., Marshall) — complete defense jury verdict for Samsung after pretrial dismissal of two asserted patents (2023). Other reported wins for defendants include Symantec (complete defense verdict defeating a >$1B damages claim) and the second Apple v. Samsung smartphone trial, plus ITC matters for HTC, NVIDIA, MediaTek, Cisco, and Motorola. On the plaintiff side, he was co-lead counsel for Qualcomm in its global dispute with Apple and one of two lead counsel for ViaSat, which produced a $283M jury verdict (S.D. Cal.).

PTAB / IPR experience. He does appear in PTAB proceedings, though the record is mixed: he represented Patent Owner AliveCor in Apple Inc. v. AliveCor (IPR2021-00970), and Quinn Emanuel (with Pak's name on filings) has filed IPRs on Google's behalf against Proxense patents (IPR2024-00232/-233/-234). His 2022 pro hac vice declaration stated that he had not previously sought pro hac vice admission in an IPR, so his PTAB experience appears less extensive than his district court and ITC docket.

Bar / education. Admitted to the California State Bar in 2002 (No. 219032); J.D., cum laude, Harvard Law School (2002); B.S. and M.Eng. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Note on sourcing: Bar admission, education, and case outcomes above are drawn from the State Bar of California, Quinn Emanuel's attorney bio and firm press releases, Chambers, the Daily Journal, Law.com/Litigation Daily, and federal court dockets. The third tracked matter is listed only as "Untitled case" in the authoritative data and could not be independently identified within the review; it is not described specifically above.