Andrei Iancu is the Managing Partner of Irell & Manella LLP. Mr. Iancu also practices full time as a member of the litigation and intellectual property practice groups.

Mr. Iancu’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation. He has also been involved in all other aspects of the intellectual property practice, including prosecution, due diligence and licensing. Mr. Iancu is registered to practice in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. He has represented clients across the technology spectrum, including those associated with medical devices, genetic testing, therapeutics, the Internet, telephony, TV broadcasting, video game systems and computer peripherals.

In addition to his practice, Mr. Iancu co-teaches patent law at the UCLA School of Law.

In 2016, the Los Angeles Business Journal named Mr. Iancu Lawyer of the Year for firms with 75-125 attorneys. In 2017, he was selected as one of BTI’s Client Service All-Stars, a list of attorneys singled out for exemplary client service by corporate counsel at large organizations. In 2013, California Lawyer magazine named Mr. Iancu an Attorney of the Year in the area of intellectual property. The CLAY award, as it is commonly known, is given annually to California attorneys whose achievements had a significant impact on the law. Mr. Iancu was recognized for the large settlements he secured in 2012 for TiVo. Overall, judgments and settlements for TiVo resulting from patent cases against EchoStar, AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, Motorola and Cisco resulted in total payments to TiVo of over $1.6 billion.

Mr. Iancu has also been recognized as a leading individual in the area of intellectual property and patent law by Chambers USA every year since 2007. Chambers has described him as „enormously sharp and strategic,” „a brilliant lawyer,” and „really hard-working.” International Asset Management magazine has described Mr. Iancu as an „excellent practitioner” and listed him among California’s top patent litigators in its IAM Patent 1000 every year since 2011. In the 2015 edition, he was described as „whip-smart and articulate,” „so accomplished at presenting to judge and jury,” and „takes a common-sense approach to dispute resolution and is an extremely pleasant person too.” The Legal 500 US has recognized Mr. Iancu in the area of patent litigation every year since 2010. The Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journals named him among the top 100 attorneys in California in 2011-2014, as well as one of California’s leading IP litigators in 2008 and 2010-2017, and one of the top 20 California attorneys under 40 in 2006. The Los Angeles Business Journal selected Mr. Iancu as one of the 2017 Most Influential Intellectual Property Lawyers in Los Angeles. Managing Intellectual Property recognized him as an „IP Star” in 2013-2017. Mr. Iancu has also been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America every year since 2007 in the areas of commercial litigation and intellectual property law. He has been named a Southern California „Super Lawyer” in 2008-2017 and was listed among the „Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers” in 2014. Mr. Iancu was also featured in the February 2009 issue of Super Lawyers magazine. He has received an „AV” rating from Martindale-Hubbell, which is the highest rating awarded by that firm.

Mr. Iancu frequently speaks and writes on intellectual property matters. His articles have been cited by numerous other publications. In 2009, Mr. Iancu was awarded the 36th Annual Rossman Award from the Patent and Trademark Office Society for his article „Code on Disks and Hat Tricks – Is Computer Software on a Medium Really Patentable?” published in the February 2008 edition of the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. This award is given for the Journal article that „makes the greatest contribution to the fields of patents, trademarks and copyrights” during the publication year.

Mr. Iancu has a Bachelor’s Degree in Aerospace Engineering and a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering, both from UCLA. Prior to law school, Mr. Iancu was an engineer at Hughes Aircraft Co. where he received several awards including the Malcolm R. Currie Innovation Award. He is still licensed as a Professional Engineer in California.

Representative Matters

• Kite Pharma v. Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (PTAB)
  Representing patent owner Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and its exclusive licensee, Juno Therapeutics, a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing cellular immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. Kite Pharma petitioned for Inter Partes Review, seeking to invalidate all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190, titled “Nucleic Acids Encoding Chimeric T Cell Receptors.” The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office issued a final written decision in the IPR, upholding all the claims of the patent, and delivering a complete victory to Irell’s clients. The case is currently on appeal.
• MAG Aerospace Industries, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
  Represented B/E Aerospace in defense of a patent infringement suit brought by MAG Aerospace Industries alleging infringement of three patents related to vacuum toilets used on aircraft. After a successful claim construction ruling, three summary judgments of noninfringement were granted in favor of B/E Aerospace, eliminating all of MAG’s infringement claims. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in a unanimous precedential decision, after a hearing at which Mr. Iancu argued on B/E’s behalf.
• B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. MAG Aerospace Industries LLC (PTAB)
  Represented B/E Aerospace in three IPRs filed against a competitor in the field of aircraft water and waste systems. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office invalidated all three of MAG’s patents, concluding that they were obvious based on multiple prior art references.
• Juno Therapeutics Inc. et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al (E. D. Penn.) Represented Juno in patent and contract dispute surrounding chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapies for the treatment of certain forms of cancer. The case settled favorably after several years of litigation, with Juno receiving upfront and milestone payments from Novartis, as well as ongoing royalties.
• Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)
  Represented Ariosa Diagnostics in patent litigation against Sequenom. Ariosa brought an early summary judgment motion, and on October 30, 2013, the court invalidated Sequenom’s patent because it attempted to cover a natural phenomenon, which is not patent-eligible. The decision gave Ariosa a complete victory, allowing the diagnostics company to continue selling its popular Harmony™ Prenatal Test – an affordable, highly accurate, non-invasive blood test to determine fetal chromosomal abnormalities. This decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in a precedential opinion.
• Motorola Mobility Inc. v. TiVo Inc./ TiVo Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. (E.D. Texas)
  Represented TiVo Inc. in patent litigation over DVR technology against Motorola Mobility and Cisco Systems. On June 6, 2013, shortly before the start of trial, Motorola and Cisco agreed to pay $490 million to TiVo to resolve the litigation.
• TiVo v. Verizon (E.D. Texas)
  Represented TiVo in a patent infringement suit against Verizon accusing the company of infringing three of TiVo’s DVR technology patents. In September 2012, shortly before trial was scheduled to begin, a settlement was reached in which Verizon agreed to provide TiVo with total compensation worth at least $250.4 million. As part of the settlement, TiVo and Verizon agreed to dismiss all pending litigation between the companies with prejudice. The parties also entered into a cross license of their respective patent portfolios in the advanced television field.
• TiVo v. AT&T (E.D. Texas)
  Represented TiVo in a suit against AT&T, alleging that AT&T’s U-verse products and services infringed three of TiVo’s patents covering DVR technology. In 2010, AT&T launched a counter-suit in California accusing TiVo DVRs of violating three AT&T patents. In January 2012, just days before a trial on TiVo’s patents, AT&T agreed to pay TiVo a minimum of $215 million, plus additional fees in case AT&T’s DVR subscriber base exceeds certain levels.
• TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications, Inc. (E.D. Texas)
  Represented TiVo in a seven-year patent infringement suit related to pioneering digital video recorder (DVR) technology that resulted in awards for TiVo totaling more than $104 million in damages, interest, sanctions and attorneys’ fees. The victories included a contempt order which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit and, ultimately an additional $500 million settlement.
• St. Jude Medical v. Access Closure, Inc. (W.D. Ark.)
  Represented St. Jude Medical in a patent case alleging infringement of St. Jude’s patents relating to vascular closure devices. In December 2010, the jury returned a verdict of willful patent infringement and awarded St. Jude $27.1 million in damages.
• Net2Phone v. eBay and Skype (D.N.J.); eBay v. IDT and Net2Phone (W.D. Ark.)
  Represented eBay and Skype in several patent infringement law suits related to internet communications, including VoIP (voice over internet protocol) and calling card technology. Net2Phone first filed suit in New Jersey. eBay subsequently filed suit in Arkansas against Net2Phone and its parent IDT. Although filed two years later, eBay’s case in Arkansas was scheduled for trial well before Net2Phone’s case in New Jersey. Both cases settled successfully shortly before trial.
• Peer Communications v. eBay and Skype (E.D. Texas)
  Represented defendants eBay and Skype in a patent infringement suit related to internet communications, including what is known as VoIP (voice over internet protocol). The plaintiff was a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp. After claim construction, the district court entered judgment for eBay and Skype based on patent invalidity and dismissed the case with prejudice. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where Mr. Iancu argued on eBay and Skype’s behalf.
• Immersion Corp. v. Sony Computer Entertainment (N.D. Cal.)
  Represented Immersion in a patent infringement suit related to tactile feedback technology for computer simulations. A jury found all of Immersion’s asserted claims to be valid and infringed and awarded Immersion $82 million in damages.
• Grayzel v. St. Jude Medical (D.N.J.)
  Represented defendant St. Jude Medical in a patent infringement suit related to vascular closure devices. The district court found all asserted claims to be invalid and dismissed the case in St. Jude’s favor. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where Mr. Iancu argued on St. Jude’s behalf.
• Edwards Lifesciences v. St. Jude Medical (C.D. Cal.)
  Represented defendant St. Jude Medical in a patent infringement suit on four patents related to annuloplasty rings and the treatment of animal valves for implantation in humans. The case was successfully settled after several wins by St. Jude on summary judgment.
• Xerox v. Hewlett-Packard (W.D.N.Y.)
  Represented defendant Hewlett-Packard in a number of complex cases related to printing technology. The parties settled after a district court found on summary judgment that Hewlett-Packard does not infringe a Xerox patent.
• Michelson v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
  Represented plaintiff Michelson in a breach of contract case related to technology on spinal implants. The case settled favorably.
• Mr. Iancu represented a medical device manufacturer in a complex patent infringement suit related to implantable cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators. The case settled favorably to Mr. Iancu’s client, with the settlement valued at over $200 million.
• Mr. Iancu represented a hi-tech client in a trademark opposition matter in the Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Iancu negotiated a successful settlement.

Publications

• „Indefiniteness In Inter Partes Review Proceedings,” Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society (March 2016)
• “2015 Patent Reform: Is It Happening?” Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property, co-author (October 14, 2015)
• „Unpack Inter Partes Review’s First Review,” Los Angeles Daily Journal, co-author (April 2015)
• „A Bit of a Muddle on Abstract-Idea Patents,” The National Law Journal, co-author (September 2013)
• „Inter Partes Review is the New Normal: What Has Been Lost? What Has Been Gained?” AIPLA Quarterly Journal, co-author (Fall 2012)
• „Challenging Validity of Issued Patents Before the PTO: Inter Partes Reexam Now or Inter Partes Review Later?” Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society, co-author (Summer 2012)
• “Drafting Around Downstream Patent Exhaustion,” The Recorder (June 2012)
• “Toward Streamlined Patent Litigation: Will Early Disclosure of Damages Improve the System?” Los Angeles Daily Journal (February 2012)
• „Post-Issuance Proceedings in the America Invents Act,” Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society (February 2012). This article was cited by The Honorable Timothy B. Dyk and Samuel F. Ernst, Scope note, 7 Bus. & Com. Litig. Fed. Cts. § 86:1 (3d ed., 2012).
• „It’s Finally Time to Modernize Our Patent System,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (July 2011)
• “Real Reasons the Eastern District of Texas Draws Patent Cases – Beyond Lore and Anecdote,” SMU Science and Technology Law Review (Spring 2011)
• „Patent Prosecution Pitfalls: Perspectives From The Trenches Of Litigation,” Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society, co-author (Summer 2010)
• „Machines and Transformations: The Past, Present, and Future Patentability of Software,” Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property (Spring 2010). This article was „judged one of the best law review articles related to patent law” in 2010, and therefore selected for inclusion in Patent Law Review published by Thomson Reuters (West).
• „Redefining Prior Art Under Proposed Patent Reform Measures,” ALM’s Patent Strategy and Management Journal (in two parts, June and July 2008)
• „Code on Disks and Hat Tricks – Is Computer Software on a Medium Really Patentable?,” Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society (February 2008). This article received the 36th Annual Rossman Award for „the greatest contribution to the fields of patents, trademarks and copyrights” in the Journal during 2008.
• „The Patent Reform Act of 2007: Attempting to Modernize the U.S. Patent System,” Federal Bar Association Newsletter (Winter 2008)
• „Balancing the Four Factors in Permanent Injunction Decisions: A Review of Post-eBay Case Law,” Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society (May 2007)
• „A Two-Track Approach to the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Responding to Hilton Davis,” 35 Jurimetrics J. 325 (1995)

Seminars & Speaking Engagements

• Bloomberg Big Law Business Summit – West (2016, Los Angeles) – Speaker, „The Firm”
• ACI 4th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium (2016, Chicago) – Speaker, “Untangling the Changing World of Section 101: Solving the Patentable Subject Matter Conundrum”
• Intellectual Property Owners Association (2015, Webinar) – Speaker, „New Litigation Scenarios After Akamai: Fact Pattern Hypotheticals”
• Intellectual Property Owners Association (2015, Webinar) – Speaker, “After Teva: How Will Patent Litigation Change?”
• UCLA School of Law – Adjunct Professor, „Law 525 – Patent Intensive”
• Patent Nuts & Bolts Workshop (2014, Los Angeles) – Speaker, „America Invents Act”
• Orange County Bar Association Intellectual Property & Technology Law Section Meeting (2014, Newport Beach) – Speaker, “Patentable Subject Matter: Something More Than Just a Phenomenon”
• Intellectual Property Owners Association (2013, Webinar) – Speaker, “Causal Nexus in Patent Remedies After Apple v. Samsung”
• Intellectual Property Owners Association (2012, Webinar) – Speaker, “Intervening Rights After Marine Polymer: Where Do Things Stand?”

Bar & Court Admissions

• 1996, California
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit