Subscribe

  • How Can We Help You?

    Global Problem Solving from Covington: Deal with Complex Problems Anywhere in the World

Nester_Brian_1000x714_ENV

Brian R. Nester

Partner

Washington +1 202 662 5673

  • About
  • Representative Matters
  • Credentials
  • About

    Brian Nester is a first-chair trial litigator with extensive experience litigating before the U.S. International Trade Commission and district courts throughout the country on both patent and trade secrets issues.

    Brian has tried more than 20 matters to successful conclusion, including many “bet the company” cases. He represents world leading technology clients, including SK hynix, Microsoft, Nokia, Alibaba, Research in Motion, Samsung, LGE, Seagate, Intel, ASUS, Tyco, and other major computer manufacturers.

    Brian has significant experience with standard essential patents, antitrust and breach of contract claims associated with fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND)-based defenses. His work in this area covers a broad range of technologies, including semiconductor fabrication, circuit design, cryptography, telecommunications, Flash, DRAM, photolithography, displays, disk drives, magnetic media, cooling systems, optical communication, Ethernet networks, video and graphics processing and solar.

    A leader in his field, Chambers Global noted Brian “as a well-regarded patent litigator with an impressive track record.”

    Areas of Expertise

  • Practices and Industries
  • Representative Matters
    • Netlist v. SK hynix (WDTX 20-cv-00194) – Defended SK hynix in the Western District of Texas against two alleged JEDEC standard essential patents asserted against memory modules. Prosecuted FRAND breach of contract claims on behalf of SK hynix. Matter settled after favorable claim construction.
    • Netlist v. SK hynix (WDTX 20-cv-00525) – Defended SK hynix in the Western District of Texas against an alleged JEDEC standard essential patents asserted against memory modules. Prosecuted FRAND breach of contract claims on behalf of SK hynix. Matter settled after favorable claim construction.
    • Netlist v. SK hynix (CDCA 8:16-cv-01605) – Defended SK hynix in the Central District of California against six alleged JEDEC standard essential patents asserted against memory modules. Prosecuted FRAND breach of contract claims on behalf of SK hynix. Netlist dismissed matter after ITC found no infringement of asserted claims and the PTAB found all asserted claims invalid.
    • Netlist v. SK hynix (CDCA CDCA 8:17-cv-01030) – Defended SK hynix in the Central District of California against two alleged JEDEC standard essential patents asserted against memory modules. Prosecuted FRAND breach of contract claims on behalf of SK hynix. Netlist dismissed matter after ITC found no infringement of asserted claims and the PTAB found all asserted claims invalid.
    • Netlist v. SK hynix (WDTX) – Defended SK hynix in the Western District of Texas against three alleged JEDEC standard essential patents asserted against memory modules. Matter settled after favorable claim construction.
    • Netlist v. SK hynix, (ITC 337-1023) – Defended SK hynix in the International Trade Commission against six alleged JEDEC standard essential patents asserted against memory modules. Administrative Law Judge found no claim infringed and the Commission and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
    • Netlist v. SK hynix, (ITC 337-1089) – Defended SK hynix in the International Trade Commission against six alleged JEDEC standard essential patents asserted against memory modules. Administrative Law Judge found no claim infringed and the Commission and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
    • ASUS Computer International v. InterDigital Inc. (N.D. CA) – Represented ASUS in Northern District of California. Case involves various antitrust, breach of contract and tort claims stemming from InterDigital’s failure to provide FRAND terms to license its standard essential patents. Case settled favorably.
    • Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software, (337-TA-1026) – Defended major computer manufacturer against three asserted patents related to audio processing technology. The Administrative Law Judge found no violation and the Commission also found no violation.

    • Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof, 337-TA-613 – Represented respondents Nokia Inc. and Microsoft Mobile Oy in patent litigation concerning alleged various 3G standard essential patents and FRAND related defenses. Commission found on behalf of Nokia and Microsoft Mobile, finding no violation.
    • Certain Wireless Devices With 3G and/Or 4G Capabilities And Components Thereof, 337-TA-868 – Represented respondents Nokia Inc. and Microsoft Mobile Oy in patent litigation concerning alleged various 3G and 4G standard essential patents and FRAND related defenses. Administrative Law Judge found no infringement by Nokia and Microsoft Mobile, and Commission affirmed.
    • Certain Acousto-Magnetic Electronic Article Surveillance Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-904 – Represented Tyco Integrated Security in patent litigation concerning acousto-magnetic products. All respondents consented to Consent Order issued by Administrative Law Judge and affirmed by the Commission.
    • Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software and Components Thereof, 337-TA-752 – Represented respondent Microsoft Corporation in patent litigation concerning cryptography relating IEEE standards, H.264 video compression, and wireless communications. ALJ and Commission found Microsoft did not infringe.
    • Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software and Components Thereof, 337-TA-744 – Represented complainant Microsoft Corporation in patent litigation concerning synchronization, operating systems, radio interface layers, graphical user interfaces and Flash technologies associated with smartphones. The ALJ found infringement and recommended an exclusion order against Motorola. The Commission affirmed and issued an Exclusion Order. The Federal Circuit affirmed Motorola’s infringement.
    • Certain Rubber Resins and Processes for Manufacturing Same, 337-TA-849 – Represented respondents Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang chemical Co., Ltd.); Red Avenue Chemical Corp. of America, and Red Avenue Chemical Co. Ltd. Complainant asserts trade secret misappropriation for chemical processes involving resin manufacture. Commission invalidated majority of asserted trade secrets and U.S. Customs approved for importation respondents redesigned products.
    • Certain Computer Products, Computer Components and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-628 – Represented respondent ASUS in patent litigation concerning products implementing power supplies, variable speed fans and Network Address Port Translation. ASUS prevailed on all claims after full hearing on merits. The ALJ’s decision was affirmed by the Commission.
    • Certain Semiconductor Devices, DMA Systems, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-607 – Represented Samsung Electronics against Renesas Technology in a patent case relating to semiconductors and DMA systems. Case settled after trial.
    • Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-595 – Defended Samsung Electronics against patent infringement claims brought by Renesas Technology Corp. accusing Samsung’s DRAM products. Case settled after trial.
    • Certain Disc Drives, Components Thereof, 337-TA-516 – Represented Complainant Seagate Technology Inc. in suit alleging infringement of seven patents relating to technology contained in micro-disc drives. After first day of trial, case settled favorably when respondent agreed to cease manufacture of all products that were the subject of the complaint.
    • Certain Digital Display Controllers and Products Containing Same, 337- TA-491 – Prosecuted patent infringement case on behalf of Genesis Microchip against MStar Electronics and other parties involving digital scaling and multiple display format controller chips. Case won after full hearing on the merits; exclusion order issued barring all accused products from entry into the United States.
    • Certain Digital Display Controllers and Products Containing Same, 337- TA-481 – Prosecuted patent infringement case on behalf of Genesis Microchip against MRT Electronics and Trumpion Microelectronics involving flat panel controller chips. Case won after full hearing on the merits and review by the Commission; exclusion order issued barring all accused products from entry into the United States.
    • Certain Integrated Repeaters, Switches, Transceivers and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-435 – Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims for Intel against Altima Communications through a full trial, and obtained exclusion order. The case involved semiconductor technology, Ethernet repeaters and semiconductor packaging technology.
    • Certain Video Graphics Display Controllers and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-412 – Defended ATI Technologies, Inc. against patent infringement claims brought by Cirrus Logic, Inc. ATI prevailed against all claims after full hearing on the merits. The ALJ’s decision was affirmed by the full Commission and Cirrus did not appeal.
    • Certain CMOS Image Sensors and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-846 – Represented STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics, Inc. in patent litigation concerning complementary metal oxide semiconductor image sensors. This case settled.
    • ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. v. IBM, (S.D. CA) – Counsel for ASUSTeK, plaintiff and counterclaim defendant in patent litigation concerning storage area network and servers. Case settled after favorable claim construction for ASUS.
    • Certain Portable Communication Devices, 337-TA-827 – Represented Research In Motion in patent litigation concerning I/O circuitry, mobile device operating systems, and remote procedure calls for heterogeneous network. This case settled.
    • Certain Game Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-757 – Represented Complainant Microsoft Corporation in patent litigation concerning wireless data transmission technology. This case settled.
    • Seagate Technology, LLC v. Cornice Inc., (Del.) – Represented Plaintiff Seagate suit brought against Cornice for infringement of seven patents relating to disk drive technology. This case settled.
    • Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-735 – Represented respondent RIM in patent litigation concerning Flash memory fabrication and process technologies. This case settled.
    • Certain Wireless Communications System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs, 337-TA-706 – Represented respondent Research In Motion Limited and Research In Motion Corporation in patent litigation involving a broad range of technologies, including encryption, memory architecture, user-interface, battery control circuitry and network architecture technologies. The parties settled this action.
    • Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture Or Display Functionality and Components Thereof, 337-TA-672 – Represented complainant LG Electronics against Kodak in an investigation concerning digital cameras implementing display functionality and auto focus functionality. This case settled.
    • Advanced Interactive, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, et al., (N.D. Ill.) – Represented defendant ATI technologies against claims of infringement of patents related to graphics controller hardware. Obtained summary judgment on claim construction, which resulted in plaintiff stipulating to ATI’s non-infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
    • Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, Components Thereof, 337-TA-663 – Represented respondent LG Electronics against Kodak in an investigation concerning handheld electronic devices implementing digital cameras. This case settled.
    • Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III), 337-TA-630 – Represented respondent, Ramaxel Technology Ltd., in investigation involving small-format BGA semiconductor packages and products containing such packages. Ramaxel prevailed on all claims after full hearing under ALJ’s decision.
    • Certain Flash Memory Devices and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Such Devices and Components, 337-TA-552 – Defended respondent Hynix Semiconductor against patent infringement claims brought by Toshiba Corp. accusing Hynix’ Flash memory business. Hynix prevailed against all claims after full hearing on the merits. The ALJ’s decision was affirmed by the full Commission.
    • Certain Set-To-Boxes and Components Thereof, 337-TA-454 – Firm Directory Counsel for Gemstar in patent litigation concerning core television technologies, including interactive program guides and set-top box electronics; adverse U.S. International Trade Commission determination reversed on appeal to Federal Circuit; case subsequently settled favorably.
    • Microsoft v. Datel, (W.D. WA) – Counsel for Microsoft Corporation, in patent litigation relating to wireless data transmission technology. This case settled.
    • Motorola v. Microsoft (S.D. FL) – Counsel for Microsoft Corporation, in patent litigation relating to I/O software architecture, synchronization, video compression, location identification based on wireless call, 802.11 wireless communication.
    • Motorola v. Microsoft, (W.D. WI) – Counsel for Microsoft Corporation, in patent litigation relating to synchronization, operating systems, radio interface layers, graphical user interfaces, and Flash technologies associated with smartphones.
    • Microsoft v. Motorola, (W.D. WA) – Counsel for Microsoft Corporation, in patent litigation relating to various technologies associated with smartphones.
    • EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Research In Motion (D DE) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, in patent litigation relating to interactive TV on smartphones.
    • WordCheck Tech v. Alt-N Technologies, Ltd., (E.D. TX) – Counsel for Alt-N Technologies, in patent litigation relating to inappropriate content filtering. This case settled.
    • InNova Patent Licensing v. Research In Motion, (E.D. TX) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, in patent litigation relating to data filtering. This case settled.
    • EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Research In Motion, (E.D. TX) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, in patent litigation relating to wireless modems.
    • Alfred Levine v. Research In Motion, et al., (E.D. TX) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, this case involved allegations that RIM infringed patents relating to an electronic wireless navigation system.
    • TQP Development LLC v. Research In Motion, et al., (E.D. TX) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, this case involved allegations that RIM infringed patents relating to an encrypted data transmission system employing means for randomly altering the encryption keys.
    • Mosaid Technologies Incorporated v. Dell, Inc., et al., (E.D. TX) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, this case involves allegations that RIM infringes patents allegedly relating to the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standards.
    • Child Protect v. Research In Motion, (E.D. TX) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, in patent litigation relating to data filtering.
    • Bandspeed v. Research In Motion, (E.D. TX) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, in defending against patents directed to selecting and managing communication channels in a communication system.
    • SimpleAir v. Research In Motion, (E.D. TX) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, in patent litigation relating to network technology.
    • ADC v. Research In Motion, (N.D. IL) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, in patent infringement litigation relating to mobile handset technology. This case has settled.
    • Motorola v. Research In Motion, (N.D. IL) – Counsel for RIM, defendant, in matter relating to WiFi, user interface, memory management, data communication networks and battery power management technologies.
    • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company, (S.D. CA) – Represented LG Electronics in a patent litigation concerning digital cameras implementing video compression/decompression functionality and display functionality.
    • ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International v. IBM, (N.D. CA) – Counsel for ASUS in patent litigation concerning products implementing power supplies, variable speed fans and Network Address Port Translation.
    • Genesis Microchip, Inc. v. Media Realty Technologies and Trumpion Microelectronics Inc., (N.D. CA) – Represented Plaintiff Genesis Microchip for infringement of display hardware technology. Obtained summary judgment of infringement against MRT and Trumpion.
    • CIENA Corp v. Corvis Corp., (D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff CIENA in suit brought for infringement of Cornice’s optical communication patents. Obtained summary judgment dismissing Corvis’ antitrust counterclaims and favorable settlement after verdict that Corvis infringed Ciena patents and injunction issued.
    • CIENA Corp. v. Chromatis, Inc., (Ann Arundel Co. Md.) – Obtained one year preliminary injunction against company hiring key CIENA employee in violation of covenant not to compete and confidentiality provisions. Technology relates to manufacturing and assembly of high speed optical communications systems. Injunction issued; case dismissed after injunction expired.
    • CIENA Corp. v. Jerrard, (D.Md.) – Obtained TRO, preliminary injunction against former sales director for CIENA who joined Sycamore Networks in violation of covenant not to compete. Technology relates to dense wave division multiplexed transmission equipment. Injunctions issued; case dismissed after injunction expired. Court of Appeals for 4th Circuit affirmed and adopted theory inevitable disclosure of trade secrets.
    • Cirrus Logic, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., (N.D.Cal.) – Defended patent infringement action on behalf of ATI relating to video/graphics accelerators. This case settled favorably.

    Areas of Expertise

  • Credentials
    Education
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 1996
        • With honors
    • Temple University, B.A., 1990
        • Biology
        • magna cum laude
    Bar Admissions
    • District of Columbia
    Judicial Clerkship
    • Hon. Fred S. Silverman, Supreme Court of Delaware, 1996 - 1997
    Accolades
    • Chambers USA (2013-2023)
    • Chambers Global (2023-2024)
    • The Legal 500 US (2011-2017)
    • Managing Intellectual Property (2013-2015)
    • IAM Patent 1000 (2012-2020)
    Memberships and Affiliations
    • American Intellectual Property Law Association
    • International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association

    Areas of Expertise

News and Insights

Events