Source: https://www.mofo.com/people/vincent-belusko.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:28:39+00:00

Document:
Vincent Belusko is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. His practice focuses on patent litigation, having successfully tried many patent cases to verdict. Mr. Belusko’s more than 30 years of experience also includes other jury and bench trials, arbitrations, and numerous Federal Circuit appellate arguments concerning patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, unfair competition, and related intellectual property matters.
He has litigated cases on a diverse range of technologies, including telecommunications, medical devices, GPS navigation, video compression, Blu-ray technology, and musical instruments. Mr. Belusko has worked on numerous cases involving standard setting bodies and patent pools, including litigation and non-litigation matters relating to MPEG and ATSC standards, as well as FRAND issues. Prior to joining Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Belusko chaired a notable patent infringement trial in which a $70 million jury verdict for his client was confirmed on appeal (185 F.3d 1259). The case ultimately settled for $100 million.
In 2012, 2013, and 2019, the Daily Journal named Mr. Belusko one of the Top IP Lawyers in California, and in 2012 the Los Angeles Business Journal named him among its Who’s Who in Intellectual Property Law. He is also recommended as a leading lawyer by Chambers USA 2015 and Super Lawyers.
Mr. Belusko received his B.S. in civil engineering from Washington University and his J.D., with honors, from The George Washington University Law School, where he served as a member of The Law Review. In addition to being admitted to practice in all California district courts, the U.S. Courts of Appeals (Ninth and Federal Circuits), and the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Genoa Color Technologies v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., et al.
(Southern District of New York). Represented several Mitsubishi entities in a patent infringement action involving color display technology in rear-projection DLP® televisions and projectors. The court granted Mitsubishi’s motion to stay pending reexamination of Genoa’s patent at the PTO, and the case settled thereafter on very favorable terms for Mitsubishi.
Cheetah Omni v. Samsung, et al.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Inc. in a patent infringement case involving DLP televisions. Judgment was entered in Mitsubishi’s favor following a favorable claim construction and affirmed by Federal Circuit on appeal.
(District of Delaware). Currently representing Cellco Partnership and TCS in an action relating to GPS navigation applications for cell phones. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement at the district court. Awaiting appeal result from the Federal Circuit.
Printless Previews v. Twentieth Century Fox et al.
(Central District of California). Represented major movie studios in a patent infringement action relating to post-production and editing methods. The case was stayed after the PTO granted requests for reexamination of the patent in suit. The final rejection of all claims of the patent in suit was affirmed by the Board of Patent Appeals and then the Federal Circuit.
Patent Harbor v. Fox et al.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented numerous media and entertainment companies in patent infringement suit involving DVD and Blu-ray authoring technologies and obtained favorable settlements.
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Disney et al.
(Southern District of California). Represented several large media and entertainment companies in patent infringement suit involving video compression and obtained favorable settlements.
MONKEYMedia v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.
(Western District of Texas). Currently representing numerous entertainment companies in patent infringement case involving DVD and Blu-ray technology. Filed reexamination requests as to three of six patents; all claims stand rejected. The court granted Defendants’ motion to stay pending reexamination.
ICHL v. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Mitsubishi in a patent infringement case involving heat sink assemblies in televisions. Judgment was entered in Mitsubishi’s favor following a favorable claim construction, and Plaintiff withdrew its appeal in January 2012.
Vehicle IP, LLC v. General Motors Corp., et al.
(Western District of Wisconsin). Won summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of Verizon Wireless and Networks in Motion in a patent infringement action involving downloadable turn-by-turn GPS navigation technology for cell phones. The decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Nissim Corp. v. Time Warner Inc., et al.
(Southern District of Florida). Currently representing Time Warner, Warner Bros., and New Line in a patent infringement case involving several aspects of DVD technology. Filed several reexamination requests, all of which were granted.
Interactive Music Technology LLC v. Roland Corp. U.S., et al.
(Central District of California). Represented Yamaha in a patent infringement action on electronic music instruments. The lawsuit was filed in E.D. Tex., but Yamaha and its co-defendants successfully moved to transfer the case to C.D. Cal. The case was then stayed pending reexamination, and subsequently dismissed when all claims of the patents were cancelled.
(Central District of California). Represented individual software inventor in patent infringement trial against Microsoft Corp., resulting in a jury verdict for the inventor and an award of $6.9 million, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. After a second appeal relating to post-verdict sales, Mr. Amado’s total award increased to $16 million.
Odetics Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp.
(Eastern District of Virginia). Represented plaintiff in patent infringement trial, resulting in a jury verdict of willful infringement and an award of $70.6 million in 1998. Following the trial court’s grant of Judgment as a Matter of Law for Defendants, the Federal Circuit reinstated the jury verdict. The case settled in 1999 for $100 million.
(Northern District of Ohio). Currently represent Verizon Wireless in defending a patent infringement action directed to telephone network technology. Case is stayed pending inter partes reexamination requests prepared by our firm.
Vehicle IP LLC v. TeleCommunication Systems, et al.
(District of Delaware). Currently represent TCS and Verizon Wireless in defending a patent infringement action related to vehicle navigation technology.
TracBeam v. Verizon Wireless, et al.
(Eastern District of Texas). Currently represent Verizon Wireless in defending a patent infringement action related to cellular location-based platforms.
In 2012, 2013, and 2019, the Daily Journal named Mr. Belusko one of the Top IP Lawyers in California, and in 2012 the Los Angeles Business Journal named him among its Who’s Who in Intellectual Property Law. He is also recommended as a leading lawyer by Chambers USA 2015, by Super Lawyers, and by Legal 500 US 2016. He has also been named a “Global IP Star” by Managing Intellectual Property 2018.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.