Arpita Bhattacharyya, Ph.D.
- Palo Alto
Notice
Before proceeding, please note: If you are not a current client of Perkins Coie, please do not include any information in this e-mail that you or someone else considers to be of a confidential or secret nature. Perkins Coie has no duty to keep confidential any of the information you provide. Neither the transmission nor receipt of your information is considered a request for legal advice, securing or retaining a lawyer. An attorney-client relationship with Perkins Coie or any lawyer at Perkins Coie is not established until and unless Perkins Coie agrees to such a relationship as memorialized in a separate writing.
Arpita focuses on patent and trade secret litigation, post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and IP counseling to meet clients’ business objectives.
Arpita Bhattacharyya, Ph.D., represents both startups and established companies across industries on complex IP matters. With a background in electronics engineering and biomedical engineering, Arpita draws on her technical versatility and broad legal experience to counsel clients on IP issues related to emerging and deep technologies, such as augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR), AI, robotics, liquid cooling, and digital health. She also has extensive experience in medical devices, diagnostics, computer software and hardware, and various other electrical and mechanical technologies.
Arpita’s patent litigation experience spans all stages of district court and U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) matters, from pre-suit due diligence through trial and appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition to developing and executing effective trial strategies, Arpita has argued numerous claim construction, summary judgment, and other motion hearings, and has taken and defended many fact and expert depositions. In her patent office practice, Arpita advises clients on ex parte reexaminations and represents both petitioners and patent owners in all phases of inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings, including appeals to the Federal Circuit.
Her counseling practice includes patent portfolio development and management; assessing pre-litigation IP opportunities and risks; and providing strategic advice through opinions of counsel, due diligence investigations, and freedom-to-operate analyses.
Areas of focus
Industries
Services
Education & Credentials
Education
- Northeastern University School of Law, J.D., 2013
- Boston University, Ph.D., Biomedical Engineering, 2008
- Clemson University, M.S., Bioengineering, 2003
- S.V. National Institute of Technology, India, B.E., Electronics Engineering, 2001
Bar and Court Admissions
-
California
-
Massachusetts
-
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Related Employment
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Technical Specialist/Patent Agent, 2008-2010; Student Associate, 2010-2013; Associate, 2013-2020; Partner, 2021-2025; Managing Partner of Palo Alto Office, 2023-2025
- Judicial Intern for Hon. Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, 2012-2013
Additional Languages
- Hindi
Professional Recognition
Recipient of the ALM California Legal Award for Women Leaders in Tech Law, 2024
Recognized in Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) for Litigation, 2024, 2025
Recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for Patent Litigation and Prosecution, 2024
Recognized by The Legal 500 U.S. as Next Generation Partner for Patent Litigation and Prosecution, 2023
Recognized by World Intellectual Property Review as an IP Trailblazer, 2020
Impact
Professional Leadership
- Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley (APABA-SV), Co-chair, Intellectual Property Committee
- ChIPs—Advancing Women in IP, Member
- PTAB Bar Association, Member
- San Francisco Bay Area Intellectual Property Inn of Court, Member
Professional Experience
Representative cases
Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc.*
Secured successful jury verdict for client, Asetek, in a case against a competitor selling infringing computer cooling systems. Jury awarded damages at 14.5% royalty rate and rejected all of CMI USA’s invalidity defenses. Judge imposed enhanced damages for post-trial willful infringement.
Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S*
Represented Asetek in declaratory judgment action filed by Asia Vital Components Co. alleging patent invalidity and non-infringement of Asetek’s patents directed to computer liquid cooling. Judge issued summary judgment of no invalidity of Asetek’s patents. Case settled close to trial.
Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof, and Packaging and Manuals Therefor; Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles*
Represented respondent Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Design in two International Trade Commission (ITC) cases, one brought by Razor and the other brought by Segway, achieving administrative law judge findings of no infringement and no domestic industry after trial in each case; both results were affirmed by the Commission. Member of the trial team in the ITC case against Segway.
Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid*
Represented Cepheid in lawsuit filed by Roche Molecular Systems alleging infringement of a patent directed to diagnostic testing and secured dismissal based on Section 101.
Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations*
Represented Intuitive Surgical Operations in inter partes review proceedings filed by Auris Health, Inc. on surgical robotic technologies and on related appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, leading to settlement of the patent infringement disputes.
FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC*
Successfully convinced the Federal Circuit to vacate and remand adverse Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions, with the Federal Circuit finding the patent owner was not entitled to any presumption that the patented invention (related to bicycle chainring technology) was responsible for the alleged secondary considerations. On remand, the PTAB ruled in favor of client FOX Factory, finding all of SRAM’s claims unpatentable.
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. v. Accelight Technologies, Inc.
Co-lead counsel for Accelight in district court action and lead counsel on related inter partes review proceedings on optoelectronic transceiver technologies.
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. v. Eoptolink Technology USA Inc.
Co-lead counsel for Eoptolink in district court action and lead counsel on related inter partes review proceedings on optoelectronic transceiver technologies.
*Prior Experience
Insights
