Etai Lahav, Partner

(646) 502 -5957  |  etai@radip.com

Etai Lahav is Partner of Radulescu LLP, an elite patent litigation boutique firm based in New York City.  The firm has a reputation for focusing on high-stakes, complex patent litigation where a deep understanding of the interplay between technology and legal issues is critical to a company's litigation success.  The firm often works on matters where patent litigation is the most important risk facing a client, typically in the context of a multi-patent, multi-jurisdiction dispute with a primary competitor. 

 

Mr. Lahav has supervised numerous patent cases in Federal District Courts throughout the United States, at the International Trade Commission, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  He has successfully argued numerous substantive and non-substantive motions, including a number of claim construction hearings, and has argued before the Federal Circuit.  Mr. Lahav has trial experience including examining and cross examining both fact and expert witnesses and arguing motions during trial.  Mr. Lahav earned a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the Cooper Union, and served as a law clerk for the Honorable Thomas P. Griesa in the Southern District of New York after graduating from Cardozo Law School in New York.  Mr. Lahav was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” for intellectual property litigation in 2013-2019. 

Education
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

(J.D. magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, Cardozo Law Review, 2006)

 

Cooper Union

(B.S., Electrical Engineering
Eta Kappa Nu, 2004)

Prior Associations
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP:

Associate, 2011-2013

 

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP:

Associate, 2007-2011

 

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Law Clerk to The Honorable Thomas P. Griesa, 2006-2007

 

Admissions

The State Bar of New York

 

United States Federal Courts:

Southern District of New York
Eastern District of New York
Eastern District of Texas

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

 

Lectures

Patent Law 101

HackNY Summer Fellowship Program (July 29, 2013). Introductory patent law lecture to college-level software engineering and computer science students.

 

Cooper Union. 

Annual introductory patent law lecture to freshman engineering students.

Notable Representations 
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. et al. v. Satco Products, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Seoul Semiconductor in a patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of New York involving eleven patents related to LED structures and packages for use in LED lighting products. 

 

Super Lighting v. Maxlite

Counsel for defendant Maxlite in a patent infringement action filed by Super Lighting in the Central District of California involving 6 patents relating to T8 LED tubes.

 

337-TA-1081 (LED Lighting Devices, LED Power Supplies, and Components Thereof) Signify Holding BV f/k/a Philips Lighting Holding BV et al. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., d/b/a WAC Lighting

Counsel for respondent WAC Lighting in a patent infringement action filed by Signify (represented by Finnegan Henderson) in the ITC involving 5 patents relating to LED technology including patents originating from Color Kinetics Inc.

 

IPRs 2018-1574 and 2019-0834 (Intel v. Institute of Micro-Electronics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Counsel for Patent Owner IMECAS in two (2) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board involving IMECAS Patent No. 9,070,719.  Obtained denial of institution in both cases.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., d/b/a WAC Lighting

Counsel for defendant WAC Lighting in a patent infringement action filed by Philips (represented by Finnegan Henderson) in the District of Massachusetts involving 10 patents relating to LED technology including patents originating from Color Kinetics Inc.

 

IPRs 2015-1287, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293 and 1294 (WAC Lighting v. Philips)

Counsel for Petitioner WAC Lighting in seven (7) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board requesting the cancellation of asserted invalid claims in Philips’ U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,988; 6,147,458; 6,250,774; 6,561,690; 6,586,890; 7,038,399; and 7,352,138.

 

Philips v. Howard Corp.

Counsel for Howard in a patent infringement action filed by Philips in the District of Mississippi involving 4 patents relating to LED technology.

 

IPRs 2018-1482, 1483, 1484, 1485 (Everlight v. Bridgelux)

Counsel for Patent Owner Bridgelux in four (4) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board involving Bridgelux Patent Nos. 6,869,812; 8,567,988; 8,092,051; and 8,256,929.

 

Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC vs. Western Digital et al.

Counsel for plaintiff Lambeth Magnetic Structures in a patent infringement action pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania related to magnetic materials for use in hard drives.

 

Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC vs. Seagate et al.

Counsel for plaintiff Lambeth Magnetic Structures in a patent infringement action pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania related to magnetic materials for use in hard drives.

 

Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC v. Toshiba Corp. et al.

Counsel for plaintiff Lambeth Magnetic Structures in a patent infringement action against Toshiba et al. in the Western District of Pennsylvania involving magnetic materials for hard disk drives.

 

IPR 2016-00013 (TDK Corp. v. Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC)

Counsel for Patent Owner Lambeth Magnetic Structures in an Inter Partes Review Petition filed before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board filed by TDK related to U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988. Obtained denial of institution.

 

Toggled v. Forest Lighting

Counsel for defendant Forest Lighting in a patent infringement action filed by Toggled in S.D. Texas involving eleven patents related to LED replacements for fluorescent lighting tubes.

 

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Finisar Corp. asserting six patents in a patent infringement action against Nistica (represented by Dentons LLP) in the Northern District of California involving optical communication technology.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Intrinsic ID, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California involving Internet of Things (“IoT”) semiconductor security. 

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. NXP Semiconductor Netherlands B.V. and NXP USA, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF in a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas involving Internet of Things (“IoT”) semiconductor security. 

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Coherent Logix Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas involving IoT semiconductor security.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California involving Internet of Things (“IoT”) semiconductor security. 

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Synopsys, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas involving Internet of Things (“IoT”) semiconductor security.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. The Athena Group, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Florida involving IoT semiconductor security. 

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Redpine Signals, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California involving IoT semiconductor security. 

 

Zond LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. & Renesas Electronics America Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. & Global Foundries U.S., Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. TSMC and Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Toshiba Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. SK Hynix Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.  Settled on favorable terms after limited discovery and Zond’s service of detailed infringement contentions.

 

Zond, LLC v. Gillette Corp. and Proctor & Gamble Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting ten patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving plasma deposition technology.

Zond, LLC v. Intel Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Mears Technologies Inc. v. Finisar Corp.

Counsel for Defendant Finisar Corp. in patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving optical communication technology.  Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement.  Mears appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Represented Finisar before the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the victory before the district court.

 

Swan Co. Ltd. v. Finisar Corp. & Fujitsu Ltd.

Counsel for defendant Finisar Corp. in patent infringement action filed by Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. (represented by Fish & Richardson)  pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving optical communication technology.  Obtained favorable settlement after fact discovery and claim construction.

IPRs 2014-0460, 0461, 0462 and 0465 (Finisar v. Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd)

Counsel for Petitioner Finisar in four (4) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board requesting the cancellation of invalid claims being asserted by Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,145,710; 7,664,395; 8,089,683 and 8,335,033.

 

Nomadix v. Aruba Networks

Counsel for defendant Aruba Networks in a Central District of California patent infringement action brought by Nomadix relating to network guest-access technology.

 

Aon Benfield v. Guy Carpenter

Counsel for patent-owner Guy Carpenter in a Southern District of New York declaratory judgment action brought by Aon Benfield relating to real-time weather systems for insurers.

 

337-TA-809 (Devices for Mobile Data Communication ) Unwired Planet v. Apple

Counsel for defendant Apple in an ITC Investigation brought by Unwired Planet against Apple and RIM relating to mobile internet technology.

 

Carnegie Mellon v. Marvell

Counsel for defendant Marvell in a Western District of Pennsylvania patent infringement action brought by Carnegie Mellon related to signal detection in read channel chips.

 

 Commil USA v. Aruba Networks

Counsel for defendant Aruba Networks in an Eastern District of Texas patent infringement action brought by Commil USA relating to wireless networking protocols.

 

Motorola v. Aruba Networks

Counsel for defendant Aruba Networks in a District of Delaware patent infringement action brought by Motorola relating to wireless networking protocols.

 

Litton v. Pirelli

Counsel for defendant Pirelli in a Central District of California patent infringement action brought by Litton relating to optical fiber amplifier technology.

 

Iqbal v. Ashcroft et al.

Pro Bono Counsel for plaintiff Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim arrested shortly after September 11, 2001 by INS and FBI agents, in a Bivens action in the Eastern District of New York and the United States Supreme Court.

The Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6910, New York, NY 10118  Phone: (646) 502-5950
Radulescu LLP. All rights are reserved  ©2019