Robert Buergi concentrates his practice on patent litigation, including both business-to-business patent suits and defending businesses from non-practicing entities. He has counseled and represented clients ranging from solo inventors to international corporations.

Mr. Buergi's recent matters have involved a variety of technologies including networks, encryption and security, user interfaces, file systems and operating systems, storage systems and storage area networks, financial software, web advertising, tape libraries, global positioning systems, fingerprint sensors and consumer products.

Representative Cases

• Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, et al. – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Representing defendant Samsung in this patent case dealing with Java hardware acceleration and the Dalvik virtual machine.
• Overland Storage, Inc. v. BDT AG et al. – United States International Trade Commission. Representing the plaintiff, Overland Storage, in this ITC action dealing with tape libraries.
• Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc. et al. – Eastern District of Texas. Represented defendant Oracle America in this patent case dealing with embedded interactive web content. Obtained a favorable settlement.
• Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Represented Sun Microsystems in three related patent cases involving 39 asserted patents dealing with a variety of technologies including storage systems, network architecture, user interfaces and microprocessors. Obtained a favorable settlement.
• PortfolioScope, Inc. v. Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd. – United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Lead technical associate in this copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation case dealing with portfolio management software and involving the analysis of over one million software source code documents. Obtained a favorable settlement during presentation of the client's case.
• Rackable Systems, Inc. v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Represented the defendant, Super Micro, and obtained summary adjudication in favor of Super Micro holding that all claims of the first asserted patent and several claims of the second asserted patent were invalid. Obtained a favorable settlement.
• Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom, Corp. – United States District Court, Southern District of California. Represented the plaintiff, Qualcomm, in this patent case involving Qualcomm’s CDMA and cellular phone power control inventions, and obtained a favorable settlement that eliminated the need for a trial in two patent infringement cases.
• Atmel, Corp. v. AuthenTec, Inc. – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Represented the defendant, AuthenTec, in this patent case dealing with fingerprint sensors. The case settled.
• Hynix Semiconductor v. Toshiba, Corp. – United States International Trade Commission. Represented the respondent, Toshiba, in this ITC action where the patents involved NAND flash memory. In his initial determination, the administrative law judge found that Toshiba did not infringe either of the patents-in-suit, one of the patents was invalid, both patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and Hynix had failed to prove that it had a domestic industry in either of the patents.