Wendy J. Ray

Wendy J. Ray

Education

University of Pennsylvania (B.S., 1994)
University of Pennsylvania (B.S.E., 1994)
Yale University (M.P.H., 1996)
Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 2002)

Bar Admissions

California

Wendy Ray is a trial lawyer with experience in complex commercial litigation, including high-stakes intellectual property litigation. She is head of the firm’s Litigation Department in Los Angeles. Ms. Ray’s long track record of successfully litigating the most complicated and challenging cases has made her a go-to litigator for some of the world’s top technology, consumer products, and media clients.  Ms. Ray represents plaintiffs and defendants in a range of high-technology patent matters involving semiconductor chips, microelectromechanical systems, digital televisions, laser medical devices, video compression, automated call processing, videogames and software systems, and various other technologies. She has substantial experience representing both complainants and respondents before the International Trade Commission, and has also successfully litigated high-stakes trademark, copyright and trade secret disputes.

Ms. Ray serves on the executive committee of the Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.  She earned her J.D., cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center, where she was an articles and notes editor of The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law and Eastern Division winner and national finalist at the Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition. Ms. Ray earned her M.P.H., with distinction, from Yale University; her B.S. in engineering from the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences of the University of Pennsylvania; and her B.S. in economics from the Wharton School of Business.

Ms. Ray is admitted to practice in state and federal courts in California, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof
(International Trade Commission, 337–TA–918). Represented International Laser Group against patent infringement claims brought by complainant Canon. The case settled on favorable terms, pursuant to which ILG may continue to sell its remanufactured toner cartridges in the U.S. (2015)
Videogame Software Patent Cases
Counsel for one or more defendants in multi-party software patent cases brought against makers and distributors of electronic entertainment products, including Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Harmonix Music Systems, et al. (District of Delaware pending); McRO Inc. v. Namco Bandai, et al. (Central District of California pending); Impulse Technology, Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., et al. (District of Delaware pending); Wildcat IP Holdings LLC v. 4Kids Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas 2013); Walker Digital LLC v. 2K Games, et al. (District of Delaware 2013); Impulse Technology, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., et al. (Northern District of Ohio 2012); Software Restore Solutions, LLC v. Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Northern District of Illinois 2010)
Computer Software Protection, LLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Defended Nuance in patent litigation involving software activation and anti-piracy measures. Obtained favorable settlement. (2014)
Toshiba v. Imation, et al.
(Western District of Wisconsin). Represented Toshiba Corporation in a patent infringement action against several foreign manufacturers and U.S. distributors of recordable and rewritable DVDs. Won jury verdict of liability. (2013)
Nissim Corp. v. Time Warner Inc., et al.
(Southern District of Florida). Defended Time Warner, Warner Bros., and New Line Cinema in patent infringement action involving several aspects of DVD technology. Obtained favorable settlement. (2013)
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Disney, et al.
(Southern District of California). Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of several media and entertainment companies in patent litigation involving video compression. (2012)
ICHL v. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Mitsubishi in a patent infringement case involving heat sink assemblies in televisions. Obtained voluntary dismissal after winning favorable claim constructions. (2011)
Palomar Medical Techs. & The General Hospital Corp. v. Candela Corp.
(District of Massachusetts). Won summary judgment for Candela Corporation on 11 of 12 claims asserted by Palomar in patent infringement suit involving laser hair removal devices. The summary judgment ruling knocked out over half of the damages at issue and led to a favorable settlement of this case and another patent case brought by Palomar against Syneron Inc. involving the same patents. (2010-2011)
Cheetah-Omni v. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.
(Eastern District of Texas). Obtained judgment of non-infringement for Mitsubishi in patent litigation involving DLP televisions. Obtained Federal Circuit affirmance. (2009-2010)
Konami / Upper Deck litigation
(Central District of California). Counsel for plaintiff Konami Digital Entertainment in high-profile litigation against its former distributor, The Upper Deck Company, accused of counterfeiting Konami’s product. Won summary judgment of liability for trademark counterfeiting. Case settled during trial after defendant stipulated that its counterfeiting was done willfully and to issuance of a permanent injunction. (2010)
Rosen v. PCCW Global
(Central District of California) Won summary judgment for communications provider PCCW Global in matter alleging that PCCW had violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (2010)
Veeco Instruments Inc. v. Asylum Research Corp.
(Central District of California). Obtained favorable settlement for Veeco Instruments as plaintiff in patent litigation with Asylum Research Corporation, involving atomic force microscopes. (2008)
Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof
(International Trade Commission, 337–TA–918). Represented International Laser Group against patent infringement claims brought by complainant Canon. The case settled on favorable terms, pursuant to which ILG may continue to sell its remanufactured toner cartridges in the U.S. (2015)
Videogame Software Patent Cases
Counsel for one or more defendants in multi-party software patent cases brought against makers and distributors of electronic entertainment products, including Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Harmonix Music Systems, et al. (District of Delaware pending); McRO Inc. v. Namco Bandai, et al. (Central District of California pending); Impulse Technology, Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., et al. (District of Delaware pending); Wildcat IP Holdings LLC v. 4Kids Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas 2013); Walker Digital LLC v. 2K Games, et al. (District of Delaware 2013); Impulse Technology, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., et al. (Northern District of Ohio 2012); Software Restore Solutions, LLC v. Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Northern District of Illinois 2010)
Computer Software Protection, LLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Defended Nuance in patent litigation involving software activation and anti-piracy measures. Obtained favorable settlement. (2014)
Toshiba v. Imation, et al.
(Western District of Wisconsin). Represented Toshiba Corporation in a patent infringement action against several foreign manufacturers and U.S. distributors of recordable and rewritable DVDs. Won jury verdict of liability. (2013)
Nissim Corp. v. Time Warner Inc., et al.
(Southern District of Florida). Defended Time Warner, Warner Bros., and New Line Cinema in patent infringement action involving several aspects of DVD technology. Obtained favorable settlement. (2013)
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Disney, et al.
(Southern District of California). Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of several media and entertainment companies in patent litigation involving video compression. (2012)
ICHL v. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Mitsubishi in a patent infringement case involving heat sink assemblies in televisions. Obtained voluntary dismissal after winning favorable claim constructions. (2011)
Palomar Medical Techs. & The General Hospital Corp. v. Candela Corp.
(District of Massachusetts). Won summary judgment for Candela Corporation on 11 of 12 claims asserted by Palomar in patent infringement suit involving laser hair removal devices. The summary judgment ruling knocked out over half of the damages at issue and led to a favorable settlement of this case and another patent case brought by Palomar against Syneron Inc. involving the same patents. (2010-2011)
Cheetah-Omni v. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.
(Eastern District of Texas). Obtained judgment of non-infringement for Mitsubishi in patent litigation involving DLP televisions. Obtained Federal Circuit affirmance. (2009-2010)
Konami / Upper Deck litigation
(Central District of California). Counsel for plaintiff Konami Digital Entertainment in high-profile litigation against its former distributor, The Upper Deck Company, accused of counterfeiting Konami’s product. Won summary judgment of liability for trademark counterfeiting. Case settled during trial after defendant stipulated that its counterfeiting was done willfully and to issuance of a permanent injunction. (2010)
Rosen v. PCCW Global
(Central District of California) Won summary judgment for communications provider PCCW Global in matter alleging that PCCW had violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (2010)
Veeco Instruments Inc. v. Asylum Research Corp.
(Central District of California). Obtained favorable settlement for Veeco Instruments as plaintiff in patent litigation with Asylum Research Corporation, involving atomic force microscopes. (2008)

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.