Vincent Belusko is a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office where his practice focuses on patent litigation, having successfully tried a number of patent cases to verdict in the past 25 years. Mr. Belusko’s considerable experience includes jury and bench trials, arbitrations, and numerous Federal Circuit appellate arguments concerning patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, unfair competition, and related intellectual property matters.

He is currently involved in many patent infringement actions involving software and consumer electronics technologies, including spreadsheet and database software, billing software, voice over the Internet, microprocessors used in television, post-production video editing technologies, and various medical devices.

Mr. Belusko received a B.S.C.E. in 1978 from Washington University and a J.D., with honors, in 1981 from the National Law Center, George Washington University where he served as a member of The Law Review. He is admitted to practice in California and before the U.S. District Court (all California Districts), the U.S. Courts of Appeals (Ninth and Federal Circuits), and the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Belusko is also registered to appear before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

• Vehicle IP, LLC v. General Motors Corp., et al. (W.D. Wisc.) Currently defending Networks in Motion, Inc., Verizon Communications, and Cellco Partnership in a patent infringement action regarding a turn-by-turn navigation service. The action is currently set for trial March 24, 2008.
• Genoa Color Technologies, Ltd. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp. et al. (S.D. NY) Currently representing numerous Mitsubishi entities in a patent infringement action involving color display technology in televisions and projectors.
• C Nissim Corp. v. Time Warner Inc., et al. (C..D. Ca.) Currently defending Time Warner, Warner Bros. and New Line in a patent infringement case involving several aspects of DVD technology. Defendants brought a motion to transfer the action to the Central District of California, and prevailed. The action was transferred January 31, 2008.
• Interactive Music Technology LLC v. Roland Corporation U.S. (C.D. Ca.) Currently representing Yamaha Corporation of America in a patent infringement action on electronic music instruments. The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, but Yamaha and its co-defendants successfully moved to transfer the case to the Central District of California.
• Amado v. Microsoft Corporation (C.D. Ca.) Represented individual inventor in a patent infringement case against Microsoft Corp., resulting in a jury verdict for the inventor and an award of $6.9 million. The verdict was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. The parties are now involved in a second appeal relating to damages for post-verdict sales.
• Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America Inc. v. Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. (S.D. Ca.) Currently representing Mitsubishi Digital in declaratory judgment of noninfringement action regarding use of v-chip technology. Mitsubishi successfully appealed an order dismissing the action, and the case was sent back to the district court. The action is stayed as of January 17, 2008 pending reexamination of the patents-in-suit.
• DSU v. ITL and JMS (N.D. Cal.) Represented defendants in patent infringement trial resulting in a jury verdict. One defendant found not liable and the other liable for approximately 5 percent of the original damage claim.
• Odetics Inc. v. Storage Technology Corporation (E.D. Va.) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement trial, resulting in a jury verdict of willful infringement and an award of $70.6 million in 1998. Following trial court’s grant of Judgment as a Matter of Law for defendants, Federal Circuit reinstated the jury verdict. The case settled in 1999 for $100 million.
• Ampex v. Mitsubishi Electric (D. Del.) Represented Mitsubishi Electric in a patent infringement case involving picture-in-picture television and video cassette recorders. Judgment was entered for Mitsubishi after jury trial. Judgment affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit.
• C.R. Bard v. Kendall (C.D. Ca.) Represented C.R. Bard in a patent infringement case related to catheter medical devices. Following verdict for client in liability phase, case was settled with a permanent injunction and consent judgment.
• C.R. Bard v. IVT (S.D. Ca.) Represented C.R. Bard in a patent infringement trial involving atherectomy medical devices. Case was settled with a license after a jury verdict in favor of C.R. Bard.