Yury Kapgan

I'll research Yury Kapgan's professional background before drafting.

Let me verify additional details on background, prior firms, and the tracked cases.

Yury Kapgan — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus. Kapgan is a Quinn Emanuel partner whose IP work concentrates on emerging and computer technology. Tracked and reported matters span servers and enterprise storage (Cloud Byte v. Dell), AI/deep-learning computer architecture (Cerebras v. Rex Computing), aerial-photography software (Roofr v. Pictometry/Eagle View), recruiting software (Cornerstone OnDemand v. Ridgeview IP), consumer and messaging technology (BlackBerry v. Facebook/Twitter; Zynga), semiconductor and telecom standards (Qualcomm v. Apple), and media/streaming patent licensing (Adeia v. Disney). He also carries a substantial trade-secret docket — eVTOL aircraft (Wisk Aero v. Archer; Joby v. Archer), automotive AI (NVIDIA v. Valeo), and WordPress-ecosystem claims (WP Engine v. Automattic) — and co-chairs Quinn Emanuel's AI practice group. Notably, the tracked list contains no pharma or life-sciences patent case; his only life-sciences matter, Nektar v. Eli Lilly, is a contract/unfair-competition dispute, not a patent suit.

Side preference. The tracked docket skews plaintiff (7 of 8 appearances), driven largely by Cloud Byte v. Dell and related proceedings. That number overstates a plaintiff-only posture: his reported portfolio is genuinely mixed, including defense-side work for Qualcomm against Apple, Archer Aviation and Wisk Aero across competing eVTOL suits, Solatube against QC Manufacturing, and the single tracked defendant-side matter, Adeia Technologies v. Walt Disney. He is best described as a both-sides litigator rather than an NPE/PAE specialist — several plaintiff-side representations are for operating companies asserting or defending commercial technology (Wisk, Cerebras, Roofr, Cloud Byte), while Adeia v. Disney places him opposite a licensing entity.

PTAB / IPR experience. He appears regularly, though generally as back-up or pro hac vice counsel rather than registered lead. He was admitted pro hac vice in Cerebras v. Rex Computing (IPR2022-00741), and has been counsel of record in BlackBerry's IPR petitions (e.g., IPR2019-01596) and Roofr's IPR2023-00435/00436 challenges. The tracked IPR2025-01286 matter arises from the Dell–Cloud Byte dispute, which generated a parallel IPR series (IPR2025-01284, -01287, -01288); in that series, lead PTAB counsel of record for Cloud Byte is James M. Glass, with Kapgan serving as district-court lead. That series also produced a notable discovery ruling: in In re Subpoena to Quinn Emanuel (E.D. Tex. 2025), the court denied Dell's motion to enforce a subpoena seeking Quinn Emanuel's patent transfer and license agreements; one IPR in the series drew a discretionary denial.

Notable matters and outcomes. Reported results include Qualcomm's global settlement with Apple (Apple payment, six-year license, multiyear chipset supply agreement); Wisk Aero's trade-secret and patent case against Archer, which settled and has continued in enforcement proceedings; Solatube's arbitration win (fees awarded, settlement terms invalidated, patent misuse found) and a Central District of California summary judgment invalidating a competitor's patent plus an "exceptional case" fee award; and VMware v. Ramaswami, where the Delaware Chancery Court ordered fee advancement and VMware then dismissed. On the appellate side, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's final written decision in the Roofr/Pictometry IPR (all claims unpatentable).

Bar / education. Member of the California bar (State Bar No. 218366); J.D. from UC Berkeley School of Law, where he serves as President of the Berkeley Law Alumni Association. Public records list a prior association with Latham & Watkins in Los Angeles, though that history is less well sourced than his Quinn Emanuel tenure and should be confirmed directly before reliance.