Mehran Arjomand
Mehran Arjomand is a leading patent attorney and co-chair of the firm’s Post-Grant Strategy + Disputes Group. With extensive experience as both a patent litigator and patent prosecution attorney, Mehran provides end-to-end patent services—from patent application filings and prosecution to patent challenges and defense, including at the USPTO. His dual expertise in patent litigation and USPTO prosecution enables him to navigate complex intellectual property disputes for clients across multiple forums and jurisdictions.
In his role as co-chair of the firm’s Post-Grant Strategy + Disputes Group, Mehran has overseen hundreds of post grant proceedings, including inter partes reviews (IPRs) and ex parte reexaminations. He not only initiates post grant proceedings for petitioners, but also defends patent owners in such proceedings, from filing to appeal. Mehran also regularly provides strategic guidance for and management of post grant proceedings co-pending with litigation.
In addition to his practice relating to adversarial patent proceedings at the USPTO, Mehran regularly prosecutes patent applications. His prosecution work encompasses consumer electronics, semiconductor processing, and automotive technologies. Mehran works closely with clients in these technology sectors to develop and manage their patent portfolios.
Mehran received his B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, where he graduated with high honors. He obtained his J.D. from Berkeley Law.
Experience
IPR2025-01494; IPR2025-01498; IPR2025-01499; IPR2025-01544; IPR2025-01545; and IPR2025-01557
Filed a total of seven IPR petitions for client BOE Technology Group on a variety of semiconductor technologies, including pixel layout and layer depositions. Subsequent to the filing of the petitions, the parties settled their dispute resulting in the termination of the IPRs.
IPR2024-00812; IPR2025-00455
Prepared and filed two IPR petitions relating to cell-free DNA analysis. The proceedings were were subsequently terminated by the petitioner and the patent owner.
IPR2023-00180; IPR2023-00189; IPR2023-00348; IPR2023-00349; IPR2023-00424; and IPR2023-00438
Filed IPR petitions against six Nike patents asserted against client lululemon, and then persuaded the PTAB that every asserted claim was unpatentable. In total, the PTAB found 62 patent claims unpatentable in its Final Written Decisions.
IPR2023-00494; IPR2023-00495
Scored a pair of initial IPR victories for Magic Leap against Percept Technologies. Percept asserted two patents against Magic Leap in district court. Upon filing of the IPR petitions, the district court case was stayed pending the IPRs. The PTAB subsequently ruled in favor of Magic Leap, finding all challenged claims to be unpatentable.
IPR2020-01606; IPR2020-01599; IPR2020-01531; IPR2020-01596; IPR2020-01597; IPR2020-01564; IPR2020-01559; IPR2020-01219; IPR2020-01625; IPR2020-01601; IPR2020-01624; IPR2020-01483; IPR2020-01484; IPR2020-01210; IPR2020-01561; and IPR2020-01336
The firm represented Xilinx in proceedings as part of its patent case against Analog Devices. Oversaw and handled 16 IPR proceedings (one of the largest numbers to be litigated in one patent dispute). Successfully cancelled many of the asserted claims against Xilinx and defended challenges brought by ADI against Xilinx’s patents. These proceedings involved a large amount of evidence and technical sophistication due to the complex analog circuit designs at issue.
IPR2021-01469; IPR2021-01594; IPR2022-00003; IPR2022-00228; IPR2022-01230
Prepared and filed three IPR petitions for Splunk, Inc., in connection with a litigation brought against Splunk in the Eastern District of Texas. The challenged patents related to computer networking and network data analytics. All three petitions were instituted, leading to favorable settlement of the IPRs and the district court litigation.
IPR2021-00008; IPR2021-01210; IPR2021-01211; and PGR2021-00098
Successfully represented VMware in post-grant review (PGR) and IPR proceedings as part of its patent dispute with Cirba and obtained favorable Final Written Decisions holding all challenged claims unpatentable.
IPR2017-01813; PGR2017-00009; PGR2017-00047; and PGR2017-00050
Responded to a PGR petition filed on a client’spatent, by identifying a weakness in the petition: the challengedr had failed to properly establish that the patent qualified for PGR. The PTAB agreed and denied review.
IPR2017-01312 and IPR2017-01313
In the first proceeding, obtained a Final Written Decision finding all claims not unpatentable—a complete victory for client patent owner. In the second proceeding, directed to a method for manufacturing neodymium-iron-boron magnets, obtained an institution denial based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)—another complete victory for the same patent owner.
IPR2013-00149
Successfully represented the petitioner in one of the first IPR proceedings in the chemical arts. The patent at issue was directed to a metallized composite for reflective surfaces. After institution and trial, the patent owner disclaimed all challenged claims, resulting in a judgment in favor of the firm’s client.