Source: https://www.fr.com/ricardo-bonilla/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:34:48+00:00

Document:
Ricardo Bonilla is an Associate in Fish & Richardson’s Dallas office. He was previously a Summer Associate with the firm in 2010 and 2011 after joining the firm via its 1L Diversity Fellowship Program. Mr. Bonilla’s practice includes all areas of commercial and intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patents.
Mr. Bonilla has represented hundreds of clients in federal courts around the country in intellectual property disputes involving a wide range of technologies, including e-commerce and web site systems, computer network architecture, computer software, encryption, telecommunication, and mobile applications. Mr. Bonilla’s intellectual property practice has also involved multiple appeals where he has represented clients as both appellants and appellees before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Additionally, Mr. Bonilla has represented many individuals and companies in Texas state and federal courts in commercial disputes and general litigation, as well as class action and qui tam litigations.
Mr. Bonilla also served as an Assistant District Attorney in the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office as part of its Lawyer on Loan program. The program afforded him an opportunity to serve Dallas County as a misdemeanor prosecutor, where he picked the jury for or first-chaired multiple jury trials, tried cases to the bench, and handled multiple hearings on State and defense motions.
Prior to law school, Mr. Bonilla was a vulnerability research manager at Critical Watch before interning with Nortel, where he focused on the development and testing of multiple wireless technologies. He was also a software development intern for Eklin Information Systems, where he developed utilities for the company’s proprietary software using various programming languages, including C++, C#, SQL, HTML, and Java.
“Shifting the § 101 Burden,” Fish Litigation Blog, February 2016 (author).
“Social Media Do’s and Don’ts – Discussing Ongoing Litigation,” Fish Litigation Blog, June 2015 (author).
“Social Media Dos and Don’ts for Lawyers,” State Bar of Texas, Business Disputes course book, September 2014 (co-author).
Contention Discovery Requests in Federal Cases in Texas: Punting in the First Quarter Could Lead to Disaster in the Fourth, Texas Young Lawyers Association eNews (October 2013).
A Patented Lie: Analyzing the Worthiness of Business Method Patents After Bilski v. Kappos, 43 Texas Tech Law Review 1285 (Summer 2011).
Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (District of Delaware & United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit): Obtained Federal Circuit affirmance of summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on behalf of Bed Bath & Beyond in patent infringement lawsuit involving the local processing of payments for orders placed remotely, as well as an award of attorneys’ fees after a finding that the case was exceptional under § 285, which the Federal Circuit also affirmed.
Scott H. Howard et al. v. Chiron Point Investment Fund I, LLC (Dallas, Texas): Obtained $2+ million jury verdict for plaintiffs in lawsuit against the purchaser of plaintiffs’ business over breach of purchase agreement, along with an award of all attorneys’ fees and costs.
Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer Inc. (District of Delaware): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to a financial management system, along with an award of all of client’s attorney fees.
Opal Run LLC v. C&A Marketing, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas): After forcing plaintiff to dismiss its case with prejudice without a settlement or payment, obtained grant of exceptional case finding under § 285 in case where plaintiff continued its pursuit of non-viable claims solely in an effort to avoid the risk of having to pay client’s attorney’s fees.
Mantis Communications, LLC v. Baskin-Robbins Franchising, LLC, et al. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained grant and Federal Circuit affirmance of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patents directed to delivering content to mobile devices.
BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained grant and Federal Circuit affirmance of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patents directed to considering historical usage information while inputting data.
Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Minted, LLC (Southern District of Florida): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patents directed to automated notifications of travel status.
Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, Inc. (District of Delaware): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to online chat technology.
Tangelo IP LLC v. Tupperware Brands Corporation. (District of Delaware): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to electronic catalog technology.
Secure Cam LLC v. Tend Insights, Inc. (Northern District of California): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to image recognition technology used in digital cameras.
Lindsay Corp. v. Valmont Industries Inc. (USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board): Obtained decision not to institute inter partes review in case involving client’s patent directed to systems for monitoring and controlling irrigation equipment.
EMG Technology LLC v. Etsy Inc. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained grant of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patents directed to displaying information in a hierarchical tree format on a computer screen.
Mankes v. Fandango, LLC and Regal Entertainment Group (Eastern District of North Carolina): Obtained grant and Federal Circuit affirmance of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal under § 101 based on ineligibility of patent directed to allocating, tracking, and controlling inventory.
Icon Laser Solutions, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co.(Northern District of Texas): Obtained Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for clients Abercrombie & Fitch, Aeropostale, American Eagle Outfitters, Ralph Lauren, and Nine West Holdings in patent infringement lawsuit involving methods for using lasers to color and fade textiles.
Tiffany and Company v. Lazare Kaplan International, Inc. (USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board): Obtained final written decision invalidating claims relating to microinscribing the surface of a gemstone using a laser for Tiffany and Company as petitioner in inter partes review proceeding.
TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit, Inc. et al. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for Hertz in patent infringement lawsuit involving website encryption technology. Also represented clients Expedia, Orbitz, and Google in earlier cases against TQP, resulting in favorable settlements on the eve of trial.
ICON Internet Competence Network v. Travelocity.com LP (Northern District of Texas & United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit): Obtained Federal Circuit affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement for Travelocity in patent infringement lawsuit involving web site systems for generating a virtual reality scene, where the plaintiff sought damages of over $25 million. The plaintiff eventually assigned its patents to Travelocity to end the lawsuit.
Joshua J. Eisner v. Teletech Services Corporation (Western District of Missouri): Obtained dismissal with prejudice of claims against defendant Teletech Services Corporation in case involving class-action lawsuit alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Landmark Technology, LLC v. Assurant, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation to grant Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on asserted patent’s failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.
E2E Processing, Inc. v. Cabela’s Incorporated (Eastern District of Texas): Obtained dismissal with prejudice of Cabela’s in case involving end-to-end processing technology.
Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) 42nd Annual Convention "Our Future Knows No Bounds"

References: § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 § 285
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 285
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v.