Skip to main content
L. Scott Oliver

Scott Oliver handles patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret matters, blending creative legal strategies with comprehensive, digestible explanations of complex technology. He designs and implements individualized legal strategies depending on each client’s unique business objectives.

An experienced and highly technical litigator, Scott has handled more than 150 matters and a dozen trials before both the International Trade Commission (ITC) and juries. He has more than 25 years of experience defending and advising companies across an array of industries, including wireless, software, semiconductor, and digital distribution.

In addition to his litigation experience, Scott advises clients on strategically growing and managing their intellectual property portfolios, guiding young companies through patent strategy, and consulting handset manufacturers and patent pools on the licensing of 802.11, 4G, 3G and LTE patents.

Concentrations

  • Patent litigation
  • Trademark litigation
  • Trade secret litigation
  • International Trade Commission Section 337 litigation
  • Intellectual property counseling
  • Patent portfolio management and strategy
  • Standard Setting and Standard Essential Patents

Capabilities

Experience

  • Thorne Research and Softgel Formulators v. XYMOGEN (District of Utah). Secured a complete win for XYMOGEN in a lengthy patent infringement suit brought in the District of Utah. The plaintiffs alleged that XYMOGEN sold certain pharmaceuticals (highly absorbable Coenzyme Q10) in violation of its patent and sought damages, as well as a permanent injunction that would prohibit XYMOGEN from selling the accused products. After four years of litigation and a six-day jury trial, the jury ruled in a favor of XYMOGEN on all counts. In addition, the jury found the plaintiffs’ patent invalid both for derivation and improper inventorship.°
  • Represented Chinese steel company respondent in novel trade secret case at the ITC (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-1078); case dismissed after we proved lack of misappropriation evidence.°
  • Certain Static Random-Access Memories, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-792). Represented Cypress Semiconductor in patent litigation against competitor and importer customers of competitor.°
  • Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-775). Represented Meru Networks in Patent litigation brought by inventor of spread-spectrum technology. Case dismissed with prejudice by complainant.°
  • Certain HSP Modems, Software and Hardware Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-439). Represented modem manufacturer defending against a cluster of modem-related patents. Case settled following Initial Determination.°
  • ESS Technology v. MediaTek (Northern District of California). Represented ESS Technology against competitor that infringed client’s copyrighted software. Case settled with payment of $90 million to client after hearing on preliminary injunction—highest ever-reported copyright settlement.°
  • Magma Design Automation v. Synopsys (District of Delaware). Represented Magma in patent and trade secret litigation. Case settled.°
  • AMD v. Hyundai (Santa Clara Superior Court). Represented Hyundai in trade secret suit over flash memory technology. Case settled before trial.°
  • Ultratech v. Stepper Technology Ltd (Scotland). Represented stepper manufacturer against refurbisher and reseller globally.°
  • Linex v. Aruba Meru, Ruckus et al. (Northern District of California). Represented 802.11 access point manufacturers accused of using patent-infringing OFDM and MiMo technology. Won case for defendants on summary judgment, and awarded our attorneys’ fees by the court.°
  • Joao v. Time Warner Cable (District of Delaware). Represented Time Warner Cable, accused of infringing home security and video recording patents.°
  • MD Security Solutions v. Bright House Networks (Middle District of Florida). Represented Bright House Networks, accused of infringing security and video patents.°
  • Harris v. Ruckus (Middle District of Florida). Represented access point manufacturer accused of infringing MiMo and mesh networking patents.°
  • Accenture v. Guidewire (District of Delaware). Represented Accenture in patent litigation against competitor in insurance software. Case settled.°
  • EON v. Meru Networks (Northern District of California). Represented Meru Networks in patent litigation brought by patentee claiming VoIP infringes patent.°
  • Fujitsu v. Netgear (Western District of Wisconsin). Represented Fujitsu and Philips in patent litigation against 802.11 device manufacturer. Case settled after Federal Circuit ruling.°
  • Townshend v. Broadcom; Townshend v. ESS Technology (Northern District of California). Represented Broadcom and ESS Technology against patentee on high-speed modem technology. Both cases settled following claim construction ruling.°

°The above representations were handled by Mr. Oliver prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Recognition & Leadership

  • Recipient, The Board of Governors of the State Bar of California, “Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services,” 2015
  • Named, Benchmark Litigation, “California Future Star,” 2013
  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association, 1998-present
    • Chair, International Trade Commission Committee, 2014-2015
    • Chair, Amicus Committee, 2016-2017
    • Chair, Ethics and Professionalism Committee, 2016-2017

Credentials

Education
  • J.D., magna cum laude, University of San Diego School of Law, 1994
    • Order of the Coif
    • Lead Articles Editor, San Diego Law Review
  • A.B., cum laude, Harvard University, 1990
Admissions
  • California
  • Oregon