Alexander C.D. Giza

Alex Giza is a co-founder and partner of Hueston Hennigan LLP. His practice encompasses high technology and intellectual property matters, including patent, trademark, trade secret and business litigation, patent advice/due diligence/licensing, and appellate matters. Mr. Giza earned a Bachelor's Degree in electrical engineering at the University of Virginia and worked as an electrical engineer for Westinghouse, IAI America, and Eaton, involving electronics, test software and robotics. He is registered to practice in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Prior to Hueston Hennigan LLP, Mr. Giza's experience includes eight years as a patent litigation specialist at Irell & Manella LLP. Mr. Giza has represented clients regarding technologies across the spectrum, including digital video recorders, data compression and video encoding/decoding, network security and encryption, semiconductor design, cellular communications (CDMA, GSM, GPRS, UMTS, LTE), internet software, near field communications (NFC), cellular user interfaces, audio and video conferencing, liquid crystal displays, computer hard drives, digital watermarking, laptop computer modems, random number generators, music channel broadcasting, ATSC television receivers, and MEMS technology.

Mr. Giza's clients include or have included T-Mobile USA, Inc., Pizza Hut, Inc., ClearOne, Inc., TiVo Inc., Hewlett Packard Co., Chi Mei Optoelectronics, Amberwave Systems Corp., Thomson, Inc., and American Audio Components, Inc.

In 2016, Mr. Giza gave a guest lecture at University of California, Los Angeles, for EE293 Intellectual Property For Technology Entrepreneurs and Managers regarding Technology IP Litigation and Licensing.

Also in 2016, Mr. Giza co-chaired the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Association Washington in the West 2016 conference and moderated the panel entitled Exploring Inter-Partes Review and Covered Business Method Proceedings: IPR/CBM procedures, pitfalls, and strategies from petition through appeal. The panel included The Honorable Matthew Clements, Lead Administrative Patent Judge, Patent Trial and Appeals Board; Dr. Kristi Sawert, USPTO Associate Solicitor; and Rouz Tabbador, Vice President & Chief IP/Licensing Officer of Core Logic.

Mr. Giza was selected for inclusion in Los Angeles Magazine's Southern California Super Lawyers in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 and was named among the "Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers" for 2015 by Super Lawyers magazine. In previous years, he was selected for inclusion in Los Angeles Magazine's Southern California Rising Stars in intellectual property litigation.

In 2014, Mr. Giza chaired a Federal Circuit Bar Association MCLE panel on the issue of patent claim indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112 and the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, No. 13-269. The panel included lead trial counsel from both parties, John Vandenberg of Klarquist Sparkman and Michael Bonella of Condo Roccia Koptiw; Dr. Kristi Sawert, USPTO Associate Solicitor; and Prof. Joe Miller of the University of Georgia School of Law.

In 2013, Mr. Giza chaired a Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association MCLE panel for the annual Washington in the West conference on the issue of USPTO practice and procedure regarding third party pre-issuance submissions. On the panel with him were Jack Harvey, USPTO Technology Center Director; Patrick Jewik of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton; and Amanda Lowerre of Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery.

In 2011, Mr. Giza represented six former U.S. PTO and Patent Commissioners (Hon. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Hon. Donald J. Quigg, Hon. Harry F. Manbeck, Jr., Hon. Bruce A. Lehman, Hon. Q. Todd Dickinson, and Mr. Nicholas P. Godici) as amicus curiae in Microsoft v. i4i, No. 10-290, before the U.S. Supreme Court. The former U.S. PTO and Patent Commissioners advocated for maintaining the clear-and-convincing standard of proof needed to invalidate a U.S. Patent, which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld.

In 2010, Mr. Giza represented five former U.S. federal court judges (Hon. Stephen G. Larson, Hon. Thomas D. Lambros, Hon. John C. Lifland, Hon. James F. Davis, and Hon. Thomas R. Brett) as amicus curiae in TiVo v. Echostar, No. 2009-1374, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit en banc. The five former U.S. federal court judges supported the district court's ruling of contempt, which the Federal Circuit en banc affirmed.

In 2009, Mr. Giza collaborated with Morgan Chu, Christine Byrd, and the American College of Trial Lawyers on the book Anatomy of a Patent Case, which provides a concise summary of the key elements of patent litigation and offers suggestions as to how to deal with some of the procedural problems presented in patent litigation. The book is published by the Federal Judiciary Center and has been distributed to every U.S. federal judge.

Mr. Giza is also on the Panel of Practitioner Contributors for Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.).

Mr. Giza graduated from UCLA School of Law, where he assisted Professors Arthur Rosett and Daniel J. Bussel with the sixth edition of the casebook Contract Law and Its Application. He was a teaching fellow for a first-year contracts class and articles and managing editor of the UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy. During law school, Mr. Giza served as an extern for the Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and for the Honorable William J. Rea, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Following his graduation, Mr. Giza served as law clerk to Justice Walter L. Carpeneti of the Alaska Supreme Court.

REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS

  • Core Wireless v. LG, No. 2:14-cv-00911-JRG (E.D. Tex.): Represented Core Wireless regarding smartphone user interface inventions and obtained a favorable jury verdict that all accused LG devices infringed and that all asserted claims were not invalid, with a damages award based on a royalty rate of 10 cents per unit.
  • Dell Inc., et al v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, No. IPR-2013-00635, 2014-00152, 2014-00901, 2014-00949, 2014-00976 (PTAB): Represented patentee ETRI in five Patent Trials and Appeals Board inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, of which three concluded when the PTAB denied the petitions for review and two concluded when the PTAB issued final written decisions ordering that the challenged claims have not been shown to be unpatentable.
  • Clear with Computers v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-00479-LED (E.D. Tex.) : Represented patentee Clear with Computers regarding a novel electronic proposal preparation invention and obtained a favorable jury verdict, a damages judgment of $19.5 million, and affirmation on appeal.
  • TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp., No. 2:04-cv-00001-DF (E.D. Tex.): Represented patentee TiVo, the developer of the first commercially available DVR, in a patent infringement action, which resulted in:
    1. A favorable jury verdict of willful infringement
    2. A damages judgment of $104 million
    3. A permanent injunction
    4. Affirmation in relevant part on appeal
    5. A judgment of contempt
    6. Supplemental damages award of $103 million
    7. Contempt damages award of over $200 million
  • Digital CBT v. TiVo Inc., No. CV12-0618 CJC (C.D. Cal.): Efficiently represented defendant TiVo in a patent litigation, which resulted in a favorable settlement and low costs.
  • TQP Development v. Newegg, No. 2:11-cv-248 JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.): Represented patentee TQP regarding a novel encrypted data transmission invention and obtained an $2.3 million jury verdict.
  • Mellanox Technologies Inc. et al v. Infinite Data LLC, No. 1:13-cv-00913-RGA (D. Del.): Represented Infinite Data and Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) in patent litigations, which resulted in favorable settlements.
  • Knowles Electronics, LLC v. American Audio Components, Inc., No. 06-cv-6213 JFG (N.D. Ill.): Represented defendant AAC Acoustic Technologies Holdings Inc., a leading Chinese manufacturer of miniature audio components, in a trade secret case, which resulted in denial of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction after two months of expedited discovery, including expert reports and depositions, and an 11-day hearing.
  • AmberWave Systems Corp. v. Intel Corp., No. 1:06-cv-638 SLR-MPT, 1:06-cv-429 GMS-MPT (D. Del.), 9:06-cv-157 RHC (E.D. Tex.): Represented patentee AmberWave, a company founded by an MIT professor and his students that invented and developed advanced semiconductor materials and manufacturing processes, in a set of patent litigations, which resulted in a favorable settlement.
  • LG Philips LCD v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics, No. 1:06-cv-00726-LPS (D. Del.): Represented Chi Mei Optoelectronics in a series of cases involving three of the top five producers of LCD panels. Positioned CMO's case to trail a third parties case with LG, which resulted in a favorable settlement.
  • Zenith Electronics Corp. v. Thomson, Inc., No. 5:06-cv-00017 (E.D. Tex.): Represented Thomson in a patent litigation involving HDTV/ATSC technology, which resulted in a favorable settlement.
  • Intergraph Hardware v. Hewlett Packard, No. 2:02-cv-00312-TJW (E.D. Tex.): Defended HP in a series of cases involving microprocessor technology, which resulted in a favorable settlement.
  • Lycos, Inc. v. TiVo Inc., No. 1:07-cv-11469 (D. Mass.): Represented defendant TiVo in a patent litigation relating to program suggestion functionality, which resulted in a favorable settlement.
  • Pause Technology LLC v. TiVo Inc., No. 01-cv-11657 PBS (D. Mass.), aff'd, 419 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir.): Represented defendant TiVo in a patent litigation, which resulted in summary judgment of noninfringement and affirmation on appeal.
  • Represented international restaurant franchisor in pre-litigation dispute involving patents, trademark, trade secrets and other IP issues, resulting in favorable agreement without litigation.
  • Represented vegan-friendly, high-fashion women's accessories company in several trademark and design patent matters.
  • Represented 100-plus-year-old outdoor seating company in trademark and design patent matters.