Brent K. Yamashita is a patent litigator, with experience in computer hardware and software, hard disk drive, optical drive, communication and mobile device technologies. He also prepares and prosecutes patents and reexamination petitions and regularly advises companies on IP issues.

Mr. Yamashita's clients range from Fortune 100 companies such as HP, Sun Microsystems and Samsung to technology startups such as mSpot.

In both 2005 and 2006, Mr. Yamashita was named one of "The Best Lawyers in the Bay Area" in the area of patent litigation by Bay Area Lawyer magazine. He frequently publishes articles on topics relevant to patent litigation and has been quoted by InsideCounsel, CNET News, IP Law360 and the BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal on new developments in patent law.

Recent Matters

Patent Litigation

• NetApp v. Sun: Currently representing Sun against claims of patent infringement. Technology involves file systems and RAID technology.
• HP v. Acer: Represented HP in ITC and EDTX district court actions against Acer. Responsible for patents involving computer bus architecture, LCD scalar chips, and rewritable DVD drives. Obtained favorable settlement after ITC trial before issuance of Initial Determination.
• Rackable v. Supermicro: Represented Supermicro against claims of patent infringement. Technology involved computer chassis and rack designs. Obtained Markman decision finding two claim terms indefinite, which rendered over half of the asserted claims invalid. Obtained favorable settlement.
• Hitachi Global Storage Technology (HGST) v. Samsung: Represented Samsung in EDTX against claims of patent infringement. Technology involved hard disk drive formats. Successfully initiated reexamination of all five HGST patents by USPTO. Obtained favorable settlement.
• HP v. Gateway: Represented HP in two ITC cases and two district court cases. Obtained Initial Determination in ITC that two HP parallel port patents were infringed by Gateway, with a recommendation for an Exclusion Order. Handled other patents involving rewritable DVD drives, LCD scalar chips, multi-sync CRT monitors, wireless LANs, and hard disk drives. Obtained settlement of $47 million.
• Broadcom v. QUALCOMM: Represented QUALCOMM against claims of patent infringement. Handled patents involving spread spectrum communications (patent was stayed pending reexamination by USPTO) and analog filters (patent was dismissed by Broadcom).
• Papst v. Maxtor: Represented Maxtor (Seagate) against claims of patent infringement. Technology involved spindle motors and baseplates in hard disk drives. Obtained favorable settlement.
• MKE v. Maxtor and Quantum: Represented Maxtor against claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Technology involved servo designs in hard disk drives. Obtained favorable settlement.
• Fuzzysharp Technologies v. HP: Represented HP against claims of patent infringement. Technology involved hidden surface removal algorithms for computer graphics systems. Obtained favorable settlement.
• Cambrian Consultants v. Maxtor: Represented Maxtor against claims of patent infringement. Technology involved emergency retract mechanism for hard disk drives. Obtained summary judgment that patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
• IDT v. GSI Technology: Represented GSI against claims of patent infringement. Technology involved computer bus architecture. Obtained favorable settlement.
• McKesson v. NextRx: Represented NextRx against claims of patent infringement. Technology involved automated nursing carts. McKesson dismissed suit and sought reexamination of patent on basis of prior art produced by NextRx.

Other Litigation

• Perfect 10 v. GUBA: Represented defendant against claims of copyright infringement. Asserted defenses under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Obtained favorable settlement.
• Monster Cable v. Ultralink: Represented plaintiff in design patent and trade dress case involving media cables and packaging. Obtained favorable settlement.
• Maxtor Corporation v. Philips Semiconductors: Represented Maxtor on claims of breach of contract and other theories based on defective spindle motor controllers. Obtained settlement of over $24 million.