Eric C. Pai

Eric C. Pai

Of Counsel

Palo Alto, (650) 813-5623

Education

Stanford University (B.A., 2003)
Yale Law School (J.D., 2006)

Bar Admissions

California

Eric Pai is of counsel in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation. Mr. Pai has represented clients in patent litigation involving a wide range of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, smartphones, GPS systems, wireless telecommunications, software, and semiconductors.

Mr. Pai has also represented technology and life sciences companies in complex commercial litigation and licensing disputes. He has examined witnesses and presented closing argument at trial, successfully argued Markman and summary judgment hearings, and taken and defended numerous fact and expert depositions. Super Lawyers named Mr. Pai to its Rising Stars list for Northern California in 2016.

Mr. Pai received his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he served on the board of the Yale Law Journal and as editor-in-chief of the Yale Journal on Regulation. He received his B.A. in economics and political science with distinction and interdisciplinary honors from Stanford University. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Applied Biosystems Group v. Illumina
(Northern District of California). Represented the world’s largest maker of DNA sequencing systems, Applied Biosystems (AB), against one of its biggest competitors, Illumina, seeking a declaratory judgment that AB’s newest DNA sequencing system did not infringe patents held by Illumina and that the patents were invalid. The patents involved biotechnology, electronics and software elements. AB prevailed on a key summary judgment ruling of noninfringement on one of the four asserted claims. During trial, eliminated one other claim as invalid, and another as not infringed. After a three-week trial, the jury agreed that AB’s probes did not infringe the remaining claim. All rulings were affirmed on appeal.
Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al.
(Northern District of California). Part of a team that secured a victory on behalf of Sandoz Inc. in the first case to interpret the Affordable Care Act’s Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The federal district court ruled in Sandoz’s favor on all issues before the court, adopting Sandoz’s interpretation of the BPCIA in all respects. The court also denied Amgen’s motions urging a contrary interpretation and seeking a preliminary injunction.
Trimble Navigation Ltd. v. Hemisphere GPS
(Northern District of California). Represented Hemisphere GPS in defending against patent infringement claims involving GPS technology used in agriculture. Trimble sought over $50 million in damages. Hemisphere won summary judgment of noninfringement on all asserted claims. As a result of this victory, only Hemisphere’s counterclaims for invalidity and inequitable conduct remained, and the case settled on favorable terms shortly before trial.
Intellectual Ventures v. Altera
(District of Delaware). Represented Altera in patent infringement action relating to field programmable gate arrays. Case settled on favorable terms.
The Medicines Company v. APP Pharmaceuticals
(District of Delaware). Represented APP Pharmaceuticals in Hatch-Waxman litigation relating to bivalirudin drug product. Case settled on favorable terms.
Alzheimer’s Institute of America v. CoMentis
(Western District of Oklahoma). Represented CoMentis in patent infringement action involving Alzheimer’s drug development tools. Successfully obtained dismissal of all claims for lack of standing.
Confidential Wireless Telecommunications Arbitration
(International Centre for Dispute Resolution). Represented a Japanese electronics manufacturer in complex multi-phase arbitration relating to wireless telecommunications and standards-essential patents.
Applied Biosystems Group v. Illumina
(Northern District of California). Represented the world’s largest maker of DNA sequencing systems, Applied Biosystems (AB), against one of its biggest competitors, Illumina, seeking a declaratory judgment that AB’s newest DNA sequencing system did not infringe patents held by Illumina and that the patents were invalid. The patents involved biotechnology, electronics and software elements. AB prevailed on a key summary judgment ruling of noninfringement on one of the four asserted claims. During trial, eliminated one other claim as invalid, and another as not infringed. After a three-week trial, the jury agreed that AB’s probes did not infringe the remaining claim. All rulings were affirmed on appeal.
Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al.
(Northern District of California). Part of a team that secured a victory on behalf of Sandoz Inc. in the first case to interpret the Affordable Care Act’s Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The federal district court ruled in Sandoz’s favor on all issues before the court, adopting Sandoz’s interpretation of the BPCIA in all respects. The court also denied Amgen’s motions urging a contrary interpretation and seeking a preliminary injunction.
Trimble Navigation Ltd. v. Hemisphere GPS
(Northern District of California). Represented Hemisphere GPS in defending against patent infringement claims involving GPS technology used in agriculture. Trimble sought over $50 million in damages. Hemisphere won summary judgment of noninfringement on all asserted claims. As a result of this victory, only Hemisphere’s counterclaims for invalidity and inequitable conduct remained, and the case settled on favorable terms shortly before trial.
Intellectual Ventures v. Altera
(District of Delaware). Represented Altera in patent infringement action relating to field programmable gate arrays. Case settled on favorable terms.
The Medicines Company v. APP Pharmaceuticals
(District of Delaware). Represented APP Pharmaceuticals in Hatch-Waxman litigation relating to bivalirudin drug product. Case settled on favorable terms.
Alzheimer’s Institute of America v. CoMentis
(Western District of Oklahoma). Represented CoMentis in patent infringement action involving Alzheimer’s drug development tools. Successfully obtained dismissal of all claims for lack of standing.
Confidential Wireless Telecommunications Arbitration
(International Centre for Dispute Resolution). Represented a Japanese electronics manufacturer in complex multi-phase arbitration relating to wireless telecommunications and standards-essential patents.

Super Lawyers named Mr. Pai to its Rising Stars list for Northern California in 2016.

Email Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.