Grant E. Kinsel
Grant protects the integrity and worth of patents held by some of the world’s largest technology companies and defends those companies from patent infringement claims.
Grant Kinsel’s litigation strategies are distinctive for their effectiveness, efficiency, and novelty, frequently resulting in early, pre-trial resolution and added value for his clients. Getting the right result in patent litigation requires a commitment to creativity, and Grant’s bottom-up approach ensures that the optimum strategy is deployed for each case. He designs a strategy—from initial discovery, to motion practice, and ultimately through trial and appeal—to achieve the optimum result tuned to the particular case, client, and facts.
Grant has extensive courtroom experience, prevailing for clients in the most patent-heavy dockets in courts throughout the country, including the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas, the Northern District of California, the District of Delaware, and the Central District of California. He has litigated patents in a range of technologies and industries, including the Internet of Things, radio-frequency identification, tracking and mapping systems, cloud and internet services, content provision, encryption, and digital rights management.
He has litigated patents from advanced tech—speech recognition and optical character recognition (OCR), semiconductors, LEDs and MEMS, optics, and high-end digital signal processing techniques—to low tech—toys, lighting systems, and sporting goods, with each case and step along the way specifically considered and tailored to achieving the right result for the particular case.
Grant also has federal court litigation experience, including matters relating to design patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and unfair competition. He has also represented clients at the intersection of criminal law and intellectual property law, including investigations and litigation arising out of alleged criminal trademark infringement and theft of trade secrets.
Education & Credentials
Education
- UCLA School of Law, J.D., Order of the Coif, 1994
- University of California, Los Angeles, B.A., Philosophy, 1991
Bar and Court Admissions
-
Washington
-
California
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Professional Recognition
Named a Southern California "Rising Star" by Law & Politics Media Inc., 2007
Named a Rising Star in Intellectual Property Litigation by California Lawyer, 2005, 2006
Impact
Professional Leadership
- California Bar Association
- American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
Insights
News
Professional Experience
Patent Litigation: IoT, RFID, Tracking and Mapping Methods, Devices and Systems
Axcess International, Inc. v. TransCore LP
RFID-based remote monitoring systems.
Microsoft Corporation v. Geotag, Inc.
Mapping products and services.
Microsoft Corporation v. LBS Innovations LLC, et al.
Web-based mapping products and services.
LBS Innovations LLC v. Microsoft Mobile
Mobile mapping products.
Single Chips Systems v. TransCore Inc.*
Radio Frequency Identification systems.
TransCore Inc. v. Electronic Transaction Corporation*
Radio Frequency Identification systems.
Williams Wireless Technology Inc. v. Rockwell Collins Inc., et al.*
UHF and VHF flight data transmission systems.
* Prior firm experience
Patent Litigation: Cloud and Internet Services, Content Provision, Encryption and Digital Rights Management
Zitovault, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.
Cloud encryption and security.
Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Internet content provision.
Multiplayer Network Innovations, LLC v. Nintendo of America, et al.
Multiplayer network protocols.
Digital Media Technologies, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., et al.
Digital rights management.
Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. v. Acer America Corporation
Parental control systems.
Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. v. Coby Electronics Corporation
Parental control systems.
American Video Graphics L.P. v. Electronic Arts Inc.*
3-D modeling technologies.
* Prior firm experience
Patent Litigation: Speech Recognition and Optical Character Recognition
Microsoft Corporation v. Phoenix Solutions
Speech recognition and natural language processing.
Potter Voice Technologies, LLC v. Google, Inc., et al.
Associative searching for speech recognition.
Nuance Communications v. ABBYY USA Software House*
Optical character recognition technology.
* Prior firm experience
Patent Litigation: Semiconductors, LEDs and MEMS
Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of America Inc.
Mems-gyroscopes and accelerometer technologies.
Thorner v. Microsoft Corporation
Haptic feedback devices and methods.
Shared Memory Systems, LLC v. Apple
Graphics processing systems and methods.
Harvatek Corporation v. Cree, Inc.
LED design.
e.Digital Corporation v. Sanyo North America*
Flash ROM memory systems.
In re Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing LP*
Interactive call processing technology.
* Prior firm experience
Patent Litigation: Optics and Audio Systems
ThinkOptics, Inc. v. Nintendo of America Inc., et al.
Optics-based direct-pointing devices and methods.
Scalar v. Celestron*
Night vision systems.
Crest Audio, Inc. v. QSC, LLC
Use of DSPs in audio amplifiers.
Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne
Beam microphone and DSP systems.
SyncPoint Imaging LLC v. Nintendo of America Inc., et al
Optics-based pointing systems.
* Prior firm experience
Patent Litigation: Design Patents, Toys, Lighting Systems and Sporting Goods
Daimler AG v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Design patents.
Juno Manufacturing, LLC v. Nora Lighting, Inc.
Recessed lighting systems.
Quintal Research v. Nintendo of America Inc.
Handheld computing devices.
Clark v. The Walt Disney Co.
Electronic art work.
Spiegel v. Pro Performance Sports LLC
Football tees.
Patent Category Co. v. Target Stores, et al.*
Self-erecting structures.
JAKKS Pacific Inc. v. Imperial Toy Company*
Elastomeric gels.
* Prior firm experience
Patent Litigation: Pharmaceutical and Healthcare
Allergan Inc. v. Pharmacia Corporation*
Ophthalmic solutions.
Optivus v. Ion Beam Applications, S.A.*
Proton beam therapy systems.
* Prior firm experience