Served as an Expert in Patent Cases
Dr. Lavian is a telecommunications expert witness and internet expert witness specializing in network communications and telecommunications. He has been retained as an expert in over 90 cases, served as an expert on over 100 patents litigated, and delivered over 60 depositions.
He has testified in Federal courts, before judges and juries, USPTO PTAB IPR, and the ITC. In addition to his expertise in patent cases, Dr. Lavian provides testimony and litigation support services in network communications and telecommunications.
He has testified in various courts, including the United States District Court, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and other courts in the United States, the Canadian Federal Court, and a court in Malaysia. He has also served in USPTO PTAB proceedings, including Inter partes reviews (IPRs), Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews, Post Grant Reviews (PGRs), Ex-Parte Re-Examinations, and PTO Interferences.
Dr. Lavian provides technical education for claim constructions and Markman hearings and writes expert reports that include analyses, claim term definitions, and claim construction. He has provided product and technical analyses on patent portfolios, claim charts, prior art investigations, and patentability research.
These cases involved companies including Amazon, LinkedIn, Avaya, Netflix, T-Mobile, ZTE, AT&T, Ericsson, Sprint, Cisco Systems, Juniper Networks, Polycom, Motorola, HP, LG, WhatsApp, Instagram, Microsoft, Google, Huawei, Facebook, Samsung, and Apple. Below is a list of cases prosecuted, expert reports, testified, and deposed.
Courts and Venues
Dr. Lavian has provided expert testimony in the following courts and proceedings:
- United States District Courts — including the Northern District of California (NDCA), Eastern District of Texas (EDTX), Western District of Texas (WDTX), and the District of Delaware
- USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Post Grant Reviews (PGRs), Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews, and Ex-Parte Re-Examinations
- International Trade Commission (ITC) — Section 337 investigations
- Canadian Federal Court
- Court in Malaysia
Cases by Technology Area
Dr. Lavian has served as testifying expert across the following technology areas, providing deposition testimony, submitting expert reports, and offering claim construction analysis. Approximate case counts are based on his litigation history.
Venues and Proceedings
Dr. Lavian has served as testifying expert and submitted expert reports in the following venues and proceeding types, including over 60 depositions across U.S. federal courts, USPTO PTAB, the ITC, and international courts.
U.S. Federal District Courts
- Northern District of California
- Central District of California
- Southern District of California
- District of Delaware
- Eastern District of Texas
- Western District of Texas
- Northern District of Texas
- Western District of Washington
- Southern District of New York
- Southern District of Florida
- District of Colorado
USPTO & Federal Tribunals
- USPTO PTAB — Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs)
- Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews
- Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs)
- Ex Parte Reexaminations
- PTO Interferences
- International Trade Commission (ITC) — Section 337 investigations
International & Other Courts
- Canadian Federal Court
- Court in Malaysia
- Arbitration proceedings
- State courts (Dallas County, TX; Santa Clara County, CA)
Retaining Law Firms
Dr. Lavian has been retained as an expert witness by attorneys at the following law firms, among others.
- Fish & Richardson
- Kirkland & Ellis
- Cooley
- Finnegan Henderson
- Skadden Arps
- Gibson Dunn
- Perkins Coie
- Irell & Manella
- Morgan Lewis
- Baker Botts
- Simpson Thacher
- Ropes & Gray
- Hogan Lovells
- McGuireWoods
- Wolf Greenfield
- Greenberg Traurig
- Keker Van Nest
- Durie Tangri
- Venable
- McDermott Will & Emery
- Foley & Lardner
- Holland & Knight
- Munger Tolles & Olson
- Oblon
- Pepper Hamilton
- Reed Smith
- Fox Rothschild
- Desmarais
- EriseIP
- Saul Ewing
- Warner Norcross
- Faegre Baker Daniels
- Armstrong Teasdale
- Nixon Peabody
- Kenyon & Kenyon
- Wood Smith Henning
- Klarquist Sparkman
- Fisch Sigler
- Stern Kessler
Case List
Below is a list of cases in which Dr. Lavian wrote expert reports, provided depositions, or testified, organized by technology area.
Network Communications & TCP/IP
| Case | Venue | Patents | Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spherix v. Cisco | D. Del. | RE40,467; 6,233,245; +14 more | Routing, switching, TCP/IP |
| Rockstar/Bockstar v. Cisco | D. Del. | 5,732,080; 6,636,508; 6,778,653 | Routing, bandwidth management |
| WSOU v. Huawei | McGuireWoods | 6,882,627; 7,508,755; 7,872,973 | MPLS routing, packet switching |
| Corrigent v. Arista | D. Del., PTAB | 7,593,400; 7,545,740; 6,957,369 | VPLS, MPLS, MAC, LAG |
| HP v. Alacritech | USPTO Interference | 6,246,683; 6,226,680; 6,697,868 | TCP/IP protocol suite |
| Backweb v. Microsoft | N.D. Cal. | 6,374,289; +10 more | Bandwidth allocation, routing |
| Linksmart v. Cisco, T-Mobile | N.D. Cal. | 6,779,118 | Internet traffic filtering |
| Realtime Data v. Morgan Stanley | S.D.N.Y. | 7,417,568; 7,714,747; 7,777,651 | TCP/IP, streaming, QoS |
| Fortinet v. Palo Alto | N.D. Cal. | 7,519,990; 7,376,125; 7,177,311 | Packet filtering, routing |
| Backweb v. HP/IBM | N.D. Cal. | — | Bandwidth allocation |
| Fleet Connect v. Teletrac Navman | C.D. Cal. | 7,742,388; +7 more | Network handheld devices |
| Subrigo v. Turner Construction | State court | — | Fiber optic, telecom infrastructure |
VoIP & Telephony
| Case | Venue | Patents | Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apple v. VoIP-Pal.com | PTAB IPR | 9,537,762; 9,813,330; 9,826,002; 9,948,549 | VoIP, network comms |
| Polycom v. Direct Packet | PTAB, Federal | 7,710,978; 7,773,588; 8,560,828 | Firewall, multimedia comms |
| YMax v. Focal IP | — | 7,764,777; 8,155,298; 8,724,622; 8,457,113 | PSTN, VoIP, streaming |
| Facebook/WhatsApp v. Uniloc | Cooley | 8,199,747; 8,995,433; 8,243,723; 7,535,890 | VoIP, SMS, MMS, chat |
| Microsoft v. Uniloc | PTAB | 8,724,622 | VoIP messaging, mobile wireless |
| Apple v. Uniloc | PTAB IPR | 8,724,622 | VoIP messaging |
| Yoo v. VoIP Guardian | C.D. Cal. | — | VoIP CDR |
| Canada Revenue v. Iris Technologies | Tax Court Canada | — | VoIP, CDR analysis (research & analysis role) |
| Unified Patent v. e-Beacon | PTAB | 8,515,386 | VoIP location, E-VoIP, PSTN |
| NetAirus v. Kappos | USPTO | — | Video conference, unified comms, VoIP |
| Yipes v. Wyckoff Medical | Arbitration | — | Unified communications infrastructure |
Mobile & Wireless
| Case | Venue | Patents | Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ericsson v. Samsung | ITC | 6,772,215; 6,519,223 | CDMA, GSM, UMTS, LTE |
| Motorola v. Microsoft | S.D. Fla. | 7,024,214; +5 more | Wireless mobile devices, smartphones |
| T-Mobile v. Barkan | PTAB IPR | 8,559,369; 9,042,306 | Wi-Fi tethering, cellular |
| IXI Mobile v. Apple | S.D.N.Y. | 7,295,532; 7,426,398; +2 more | iPhone, iPad wireless |
| Facebook v. Skky | Cooley | 8,892,465; +7 more | Cellular OFDM |
| Salutica v. Apple Malaysia | Malaysia court | MY 172,803 | Bluetooth IEEE 802.15 |
| TCL Communication | PTAB | 6,058,304; 7,139,591 | Wireless telephony, handheld devices |
| Sectra v. Absolute Software | W.D. Wash. | 7,797,437 | Wireless handover |
| Optis v. Tesla | Consulting | 8,149,727 | Cellular radio communications |
| Emblaze v. Apple | S.D.N.Y. | 6,389,473; +12 more | Multimedia, SMS, MMS, streaming |
| M2M v. Sierra Wireless | D. Del. | 7,583,197; 8,094,010 | Wireless cellular devices |
| High Point v. Sprint | Kansas | 5,884,272; +4 more | Mobile wireless, cellular |
| Amazon v. Hera Wireless | — | 7,454,234; +2 more | Wi-Fi 802.11, MIMO |
| FedEx v. Intellectual Ventures | PTAB | 6,633,900; 8,494,581 | Mobile devices, wireless |
| FedEx v. Loramax | PTAB | 5,689,642; 5,513,126 | Device communication |
| Qurio v. DirectTV | N.D. Cal., PTAB | 7,787,904; +2 more | WAN to wireless LAN gateway |
| ATEN v. Uniclass | Jury trial | 6,957,287; +3 more | KVM switch, Bluetooth |
Routing & Switching
| Case | Venue | Patents | Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juniper v. Smart Path | PTAB | 7,463,580; 7,386,010; +2 more | MPLS tunneling, Pseudowire |
| Juniper v. Brixham | N.D. Cal., PTAB | 7,940,652; 7,535,895 | Router switching fabric, Ethernet VPN |
| Juniper v. Portsmouth | PTAB | 8,014,394 | Multicast, switch architecture |
| Comcast v. BT Americas | N.D. Tex. | 7,142,508; 5,638,516 | MPLS, routing switching |
| Patentmarks v. Internap | — | 6,016,307; +4 more | Multi-protocol routing optimization |
| Brilliant Optical v. Comcast | D. Colo., PTAB | 5,555,478 | Router switching fabric |
| Cisco PTAB (not filed) | PTAB | 5,583,862 | Routing, switching, TCP/IP |
Network Security
| Case | Venue | Patents | Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fortinet v. Forescout | N.D. Cal. | Multiple NAC patents | Network access control, security |
| Unified Patents v. FireNet | PTAB IPR | 8,892,600 | Network firewall, proxy server |
| Maxim v. Vanguard Bank | Finnegan | 5,940,510; +3 more | VPN, SSL, network security |
| F5 v. A10 Networks | W.D. Wash. | 7,102,996; 7,395,349; 6,311,278 | Firewalls, load balancing |
| MD Security v. RPX | PTAB | 7,864,983 | Network alarm systems |
Internet & Web Technologies
| Case | Venue | Patents | Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Walker Digital v. Google | D. Del. | 5,884,272; +4 more | Internet, e-commerce |
| EIT v. Yelp | N.D. Cal. | 5,828,837; +7 more | Internet, web technologies |
| EIT v. Netflix/Barnes & Noble | — | — | Internet, web technologies |
| Proxyconn v. Microsoft | C.D. Cal. | 6,757,717; 6,370,646 | Bandwidth, network access |
| Site Update v. Accor | N.D. Cal. | RE40,683; 6,253,198 | Internet web, e-commerce |
| Software Research v. HP | N.D. Cal. | 7,231,606; 7,757,175 | Internet web, e-commerce |
| IP Innovation v. Google | E.D. Tex. | 5,276,785; 5,675,819 | Internet technology |
| MOV-Ologi v. Big Commerce | W.D. Tex. | 9,286,282; 10,769,358 | E-commerce, web forms |
| Ticket Network v. CEATS | Fish Richardson | 7,548,867; 7,640,178 | Web reservation, Internet |
Streaming Media & Video
| Case | Venue | Patents | Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avago v. Netflix | — | 8,572,138; +2 more | Video streaming, distributed services |
| ZTE PTAB | Finnegan | 8,179,960 | Video communications, streaming, coding |
| Teleconference v. Tandberg | N.D. Cal. | 6,980,526 | Video teleconferencing |
| HumanEyes v. Sony | D. Del. | 6,665,003; 7,477,284 | Video streaming, panoramic imaging |
| Firtiva v. Funimation | E.D. Tex. | 10,116,999 | Broadcast, electronic transmission |
Network Management
| Case | Venue | Patents | Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| ServiceNow v. BMC (5+ proceedings) | PTAB | 8,646,093; 7,617,073; 8,674,992; 6,816,898; +more | Network management, ITIL |
| ServiceNow v. HP (5+ proceedings) | PTAB | 7,945,860; 7,925,981; +more | Web services, Internet |
| SNMP Research v. Avaya | Holland & Knight | — | IP-PBX, SNMP, network management |
| Proven Networks v. SAP | Venable | 8,266,530 | NMS, alarm windows |
| Unified Patents v. BCS Software | PTAB | 7,302,612 | OSS, SNMP, device management |
| NetScout v. Sons of Innovation | S.D. Cal., IPR | 8,065,399; 9,436,542 | Network diagnostics |
| Teradici USPTO | Nixon Peabody | 6,012,101; +2 more | Remote KVM |
| Wassink v. ACS | C.D. Cal. | — | Cisco certification, network comms |
| George Ku v. Harald Herchen | Jury trial | — | Gmail, iPhone, email headers, SMTP |
| Jerry Daniels v. Carmona | State court | — | Telephony CDR, cellphone tower signals |
| Miami Int’l Securities v. NASDAQ | PTAB | 7,921,051; 6,618,707 | Electronic trading |
| Ericsson/Oracle v. Telecom Network Solutions | PTAB | RE47,813 | Dynamic network resource allocation |
| Guaranteed Rate v. Netrix | — | — | MPLS, broadband, Cisco equipment |
| Expert for GT&T | McGuire Woods | — | Cellular network analysis |
| Mobotix | PTAB | 6,975,220 | Network architecture, protocols |
| e-Watch v. Mobotix | PTAB | 6,970,183 | Wireless monitoring |
| Citrix v. Avi Networks | D. Del., PTAB | 9,148,493; 8,631,120 | Claim construction |
| RPX PTAB | Winston & Strawn | 8,788,090 | Network communications |
| Facebook PTAB v. Windy City | Cooley | 8,458,245; +3 more | Mobile wireless SMS |
| Unified Patents v. 2Bcom | Greenberg Traurig | 7,020,467 | Bluetooth, wireless |
| Huawei/RPX | Wolf Greenfield | 6,738,378; 6,252,848 | TCP/IP, Internet protocols |
| LG/Huawei v. Intellectual Ventures | Finnegan | 8,994,433 | Wireless mobile devices |
Frequently Asked Questions: Expert Witness Cases
How many cases has Dr. Lavian handled?
Dr. Lavian has been retained as testifying expert in over 90 cases. He has served as testifying expert on over 100 patents litigated. He has prepared expert reports, provided deposition testimony over 60 times, and testified before U.S. federal courts, USPTO PTAB, the ITC, the Canadian Federal Court, and a court in Malaysia.
What courts and tribunals has Dr. Lavian testified in?
Dr. Lavian has testified in the United States District Court, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Canadian Federal Court, and a court in Malaysia. He has also served in USPTO PTAB proceedings, including Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews, Post Grant Reviews (PGRs), Ex-Parte Re-Examinations, and PTO Interferences.
What companies have been involved in Dr. Lavian’s cases?
Dr. Lavian has been retained in cases involving Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Meta (Facebook), Amazon, Cisco Systems, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Juniper Networks, Huawei, Motorola, HP, LG, Avaya, Netflix, LinkedIn, Ericsson, Sprint, ZTE, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Polycom.
What expert witness services does Dr. Lavian provide in patent cases?
Dr. Lavian provides technical education for claim constructions and Markman hearings, writes expert reports that include analyses, claim term definitions, and claim construction, and offers product and technical analyses on patent portfolios, claim charts, prior art investigations, and patentability research.
Has Dr. Lavian worked for both plaintiff and defendant in patent cases?
Yes. Dr. Lavian has been retained by both plaintiff and defendant parties in patent cases, providing independent technical analysis based on his expertise and review of the relevant prior art and claim constructions.
What technology areas does Dr. Lavian cover as an expert witness?
Dr. Lavian’s expert witness testimony covers telecommunications, network communications, computer networking, internet protocols, routing and switching, VoIP, mobile wireless, streaming media, network systems, LAN/WAN, cloud computing, cellular technology, web technologies, and internet technology patents.