Amir A. Naini

Amir Naini is in the Los Angeles office of Irell & Manella LLP, where he specializes in representing bioscience and high technology companies in litigation, transactions, and strategic counseling involving intellectual property rights, with an emphasis on patent-related matters.  Mr. Naini has been selected as a Southern California “Rising Star” in intellectual property litigation by Super Lawyers Magazine repeatedly since 2008.

Mr. Naini earned his J.D. at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, where he was articles editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal and was awarded the Prosser Award in Property Law.

Mr. Naini received his B.A. in biochemistry from Swarthmore College, and his Ph.D. in biochemistry from Brandeis University. His doctoral research focused on the structure and function of ion channels, the proteins that mediate cellular electrical properties. After his doctoral studies, his postdoctoral research at Stanford involved studying the detailed molecular mechanisms by which protein kinases transduce and record nerve cell activity. Prior to law school, Mr. Naini gained industry experience with a genomics company.

Representative Matters

• Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. et al., a patent case in the Northern District of California relating to non-invasive DNA-based prenatal testing for chromosomal abnormalities.
• Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., a patent case in the Southern District of New York relating to Regeneron’s Eylea and Zaltrap anti-angiogenesis drugs.
• SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. et al., a patent case in the District of Delaware involving Apple and Android smart phone manufacturers and web browsers for mobile devices.
• Centocor v. Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope National Medical Center, a patent case in the Central District of California relating to fundamental biotechnology patents owned by Genentech and City of Hope.
• INOVA Diagnostics, Inc. v. Euro-Diagnostica AB et al., a patent case in the Southern District of California involving diagnostic tests relating to rheumatoid arthritis. 
• CooperVision, Inc. v. CIBA Vision Corp., patent cases in the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas relating to CooperVision’s Biofinity silicone hydrogel contact lenses.
• AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. GlaxoSmithKline plc, an antitrust case in the Central District of California involving claims of monopolization of the anti-retroviral drug market.
• Quidel Corp. v. Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc., a patent case in the Southern District of California involving lateral flow immunoreactive diagnostics. 

Bar & Court Admissions

• 2003, California
• Registered to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office