|
Henry C. Su
1950 University Avenue, 4th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
+1 650.798.3528
+1 650.798.3600 (Fax)
 Download vCard
|
Partner
Henry Su's trial and appellate practice focuses on disputes involving intellectual property and antitrust claims. As an advocate and strategist for his clients, he favors a practical, results-oriented approach to litigation and alternative dispute resolution. He delivers superior value to his client relationships in three principal ways:
Substantive legal expertise – Mr. Su brings deep expertise and experience in both intellectual property law and antitrust law, and, in particular, the interplay between these two fields of law. A recognized thought leader, he speaks and writes frequently on topics in both fields.
Business and technology savvy – Based in Silicon Valley and San Francisco, Mr. Su represents primarily high-technology and life sciences companies, both domestic and foreign. In connection with each representation, he takes the time and care to become conversant with the business considerations and the technology that underlie and drive each dispute.
Broad litigation skills base – Before moving to California, Mr. Su practiced for a number of years in Virginia, where he developed and honed his litigation skills handling a broad range of cases in the "rocket docket" of the Eastern District of Virginia. His experience in this forum extends not only to civil cases but also to criminal cases through appointments under the Criminal Justice Act, which he regularly accepted for over eight years, trying a number of them to a jury.
Mr. Su has been named a Northern California "Super Lawyer" by the Daily Journal in intellectual property litigation in 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008. In addition, he was recently elected as a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and as a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, and he was named a "Future Star" among California attorneys by Benchmark Litigation - The Definitive Guide to America's Leading Litigation Firms and Attorneys (2009).
"For cases involving intellectual property and antitrust issues, Howrey offers counsel who are not only stand-up trial lawyers but also subject matter experts—people who know how to build a winning case with facts, arguments and theories that find support in the law and economics. This is critical because to get to trial (or to have a strong hand in settlement), a client’s case has to withstand the test of pleading, summary judgment and evidentiary motions."
Representative Highlights
- Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. O2 Micro International Ltd. Represented O2 Micro in a consolidated patent infringement action against MPS and other defendants in the Northern District of California; patents relate to power converter circuits for cold cathode fluorescent lamps; case included counterclaims by MPS for unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference that were dismissed in part on motions brought by O2 Micro, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78601 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2006), and 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22556 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2007), and inequitable conduct allegations that were rejected by the court after trial, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72662 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2007), as well as a best mode defense that was defeated on summary judgment, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50828 (Feb. 8, 2007); case went to trial and then appeal.
- O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Rohm Co. Ltd., et al. Represented O2 Micro in a patent infringement action against Rohm and Sony defendants in the Eastern District of Texas; patents relate to a sequential burst mode regulation system for delivering power; case includes antitrust counterclaims for monopolization and attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act and the Texas Free Enterprise & Antitrust Act asserted by defendants; for claim construction, see 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84979 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2007); case settled after three days of trial.
- Xoft, Inc. v. Cytyc Corporation. Represented Cytyc and Proxima Therapeutics in a two-patent infringement action against Xoft in the Northern District of California; patents relate to an apparatus and a method for performing interstitial brachytherapy; three of the patents asserted by Xoft in its declaratory judgment action were dismissed on motion by Cytyc for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; for claim construction, see 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34468 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2007); case settled.
Read more...
Admissions
- District of Columbia
- Virginia
- California
Courts & Adjudicative Bodies
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- United States Patent and Trademark Office
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- United States Court of Federal Claims
- United States District Court for the District of Columbia
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- United States Supreme Court
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- United States District Court for the Central District of California
Education
- Yale University (BS, Biology, 1987), cum laude
- University of Virginia School of Law (JD, 1990)
|
|