Gabriel S. Gross

Gabe routinely serves as lead trial counsel including:

• Lead counsel for NAMSA, a leading medical contract research organization, in a trade secret and breach of contract action against executives and competitor in the District of Minnesota. 
• Lead counsel for a global semiconductor leader in an international arbitration over allegations of breach of an intellectual property license with over $500 million in alleged damages.
• Lead counsel for Medivation, Inc. in breach of license suit against the University of California in Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Obtained favorable resolution.
• Lead counsel for Acme United Corporation in:
  • A patent infringement and breach of contract action against Slice, Inc. relating to ceramic blade cutting products in the District of New Jersey. Obtained favorable resolution.
  • A trademark, trade dress, and breach of contract claim brought by Slice, Inc. relating to ceramic blade cutting products in the Northern District of California. Obtained favorable resolution.
• Lead counsel for a global pioneer in CRISPR gene-editing technologies in an arbitration over allegations of breach of an intellectual property license.
• Lead counsel for Adverum Biotechnologies, a gene therapy pioneer, in a breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud action brought against the University of Washington. Obtained favorable resolution.
• Lead counsel for Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. in a trade secret and breach of contract action against services provider, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Obtained favorable resolution.
• Lead counsel for Mati Therapeutics, an ocular drug delivery company, in a breach of contract action over services relating to clinical trials, in the Southern District of New York. Obtained favorable resolution.

Other noteworthy representations include:

• Co-lead counsel for aviation pioneer Skyryse in trade secret action against industry incumbent Moog Inc. in the Western District of New York and Central District of California. Obtained favorable resolution.
• Co-lead counsel for Codexis, Inc. in a case about patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other claims against competitor EnzymeWorks, Inc., relating to biocatalysis, in the Northern District of California. Obtained consent judgment of infringement, contempt of court finding, and attorneys’ fees.
• Trial counsel for Apple in copyright and trade dress infringement action over racially diverse emojis in the Northern District of California. Won victory on the pleadings with a finding that the subject emojis were not copyrightable and not entitled to trade dress protection.
• Trial counsel for Peloton, the leading exercise equipment and media company, in patent infringement actions against competitor in the District of Delaware.
• Won rare dismissal of patent infringement suit for Peloton, in case filed by competitor Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Trial counsel for a global leader in computers and mobile electronics in patent infringement actions against two non-practicing entities. Resolved both cases successfully, including by invalidating several of one NPE’s patents through IPR at the Patent Office.
• Trial counsel for LG Chem, winning default judgement and a contempt finding in trade secret dispute at the ITC relating to electric vehicle batteries. Obtained landmark US$1.8 billion settlement.
• Won summary judgment of non-infringement of two patents asserted against Genentech’s blockbuster cancer medicines, which was affirmed on appeal in all respects. Obtained writ of mandamus ordering transfer of a patent infringement case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California.*
• Trial counsel for Envia Systems, an innovator in lithium ion battery technology, in a trade secret action brought by competitor NanoeXa, and obtained favorable resolution.
• Won jury verdict for TransPerfect in a multi-patent infringement case between competitors in the Northern District of California. The jury found competitor’s patents invalid and not infringed, and that TransPerfect’s patent was valid and infringed.
• Represented Arista Networks in a series of patent disputes against Cisco Systems over network switching technologies before the U.S. International Trade Commission and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Obtained favorable resolution.
• Successfully represented Roche against Stanford University in patent case involving HIV diagnostic test kits, winning summary judgment of patent invalidity for obviousness.*
• Represented Monster, Inc. in a trademark infringement action against Dolby to protect Monster’s branding of high-performance headphones, in the Northern District of California, and obtained favorable resolution.*
• Represented General Electric Co. against University of Virginia in patent case involving MRI technologies in the Western District of Virginia, obtained partial summary judgment of no liability, and favorable resolution.*
• Represented Yahoo! against Blue Spike in a patent infringement case involving technology for signal recognition and identification of digital information, in the Eastern District of Texas, and obtained favorable resolution.*
• Obtained complete defense victory for Jawbone in the Northern District of California, winning summary judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of patent asserted by competitor Plantronics against Jawbone’s Bluetooth headsets.*
• Represented Zynga Game Network in bringing copyright infringement action against competitor to enforce rights in computer code, in the Northern District of California, and obtained favorable resolution.*

Exemplary Reported Decisions

• Notice of Commission’s Final Determination Finding Violation of Section 337 (LG Chem v. SK Innovation), Inv. No. 337-TA-1159 (USITC 2021)
• Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc., 473 Fed. Appx. 885 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
• University of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Electric Co., 755 F. Supp. 2d 709 (W.D. Va. 2010).
• In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
• Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
• Acme United Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 214 Fed. Appx. 596 (7th Cir. 2007).

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham

Thought Leadership

• Co-author, “5 Things to Know About the Defend Trade Secrets Act,” Latham & Watkins Client Alert (April 2016)
• Co-author, “Defend Trade Secrets Act Passes Congress,” Latham & Watkins Client Alert (April 2016)
• Co-author, “5 Lessons Learned as the Defend Trade Secrets Act Turns One,” Latham & Watkins Client Alert (May 2017)
• Co-author, “US Supreme Court Says No to Post-Sale Restrictions Under Patent Law,” Latham & Watkins Client Alert (July 2017)

Presentations

• Intellectual Property and Regulatory Issues Facing Biotech Leaders Today – May 20, 2014
• In-House Perspectives on Effective IP and Civil Litigation - May 21, 2013