O'Melveny & Myers

I'll research O'Melveny & Myers' IP litigation practice before drafting.

Let me verify the practice leadership, PTAB volume, and notable tracked outcomes.

Let me verify notable tracked-case outcomes.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. O'Melveny & Myers LLP is a Los Angeles–headquartered, full-service AmLaw 100 firm founded in 1885. It operates roughly 18 offices across the U.S. (Los Angeles, Century City, Newport Beach, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, New York, Washington DC, and the newer Austin, Dallas, and Houston offices) and Asia/Europe (Beijing, Brussels, Hong Kong, London, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Tokyo). It is a BigLaw general-practice firm rather than an IP boutique: The American Lawyer's 2025 Am Law 100 ranked O'Melveny #55 by gross revenue, with roughly 761 lawyers and about $1.4B in revenue in 2024 (firm-reported). IP litigation sits within a broader litigation department that has been repeatedly recognized by Am Law's Litigation Department of the Year contest.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's IP & Technology group is described as deliberately specialized, with patent litigators holding technical degrees (engineering, physics, science) and covering the waterfront of technologies. Grounded in both the tracked docket and O'Melveny's own materials, its deepest concentrations are semiconductors and memory (Micron, Samsung Display, Yangtze Memory), consumer electronics/mobile hardware (Samsung, Whirlpool, Hyundai), software and internet platforms (Google, streaming and media companies), wireless/cellular and 802.11 standards work, life sciences and medical devices (Merck, Par Pharmaceutical, Therabody), and design-patent enforcement. Trade secrets, copyright, and trademark litigation are housed in the same group. IAM Patent 1000 rates the firm "Bronze" for patent litigation, noting strength across district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB.

Side preference. O'Melveny is predominantly a defense-side practice for large operating companies, but it is not NPE/PAE-oriented. In the tracked set of 59 appearances, 43 are defendant-side and 16 plaintiff-side. Most plaintiff-side matters are not assertion suits for a patent owner but rather declaratory-judgment or offensive actions brought by its operating-company clients — e.g., Samsung's DJ actions against Omni MedSci, Network-1, and VB Assets; Google's actions against Parus Holdings and Intellectual Ventures; Micron's action against Yangtze Memory; and Therabody's enforcement against Hyperice. The firm does maintain a genuine offensive practice for clients such as Therabody (utility and design patents) and DirecTV. Categorically, it is a defense-leaning corporate-side shop rather than a claimant-side licensing firm.

Notable cases and outcomes. Highlights from the tracked docket include Micron Technology v. Yangtze Memory Technologies (lead counsel, Jonathan Kappos), General Motors v. Cerence, Google v. Parus Holdings, DirecTV v. Adeia, Whirlpool v. Samsung, Palisade Technologies v. Micron, I/P Engine v. AOL, and Top Victory v. DivX. Publicly verifiable results the firm reports include a Delaware jury verdict for Google in the ART+COM InnovationPool case over Google Earth, where the jury found no infringement and all asserted claims invalid, defeating claims of $106M or more; a multi-year Samsung defense against Tessera Technologies arising from an ITC action plus six related district court cases, resolved by a favorable confidential settlement; and — a legacy matter — Mark Samuels' representation of AMD in its antitrust litigation against Intel, which produced a reported $1.25B payment to AMD. In life sciences, the firm reports an injunction for Par Pharmaceutical over Vasostrict® and appellate-reversal work on pharmaceutical formulation/validity issues. Note that the Network-1 v. Google/YouTube Federal Circuit decision (April 2026) was argued on the Google side by other firms (Quinn Emanuel, Williams & Connolly); O'Melveny's tracked Network-1 matters are Samsung-side DJ actions, so they should not be conflated.

PTAB/IPR practice and key partners. O'Melveny has a real post-grant practice, anchored by partner Tim (William) Fink, a former Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge of the PTAB and former Senior Legal Advisor to the USPTO Director, who chairs the firm's PTAB practice. Fink's firm bio states he has been counsel in over 100 IPR and reexamination proceedings since joining in 2021, and Chambers USA ranks him Band 2 nationwide for Patent Trial and Appeal Board work. The group also reports PTAB final written decisions canceling all challenged claims across seven patents in the Hulu/fuboTV/WWE streaming-advertising litigation (via Brett Williamson). Practice leadership: Ryan Yagura chairs the Intellectual Property & Technology practice (Chambers USA Band 4, IP; Daily Journal Top IP Lawyer); Darin Snyder is a former practice head and regional litigation head for Northern California; and Mark Samuels founded the practice and served as its first chair. Mark Liang, David Almeling (trade secrets), and Luann Simmons are also ranked/recurring figures. Other names prominent across the tracked docket include Benjamin Haber, William M. Fink (Samsung-side lead counsel), Caitlin Hogan, Nicholas Whilt, and Marc Pensabene.