• UCLA School of Law (J.D., 1990), Order of the Coif; Member of the Editorial Board of the UCLA Law Review
  • Stanford University (B.A., Economics and Political Science, 1987) with distinction

Richard Birnholz, a partner resident at Irell & Manella LLP’s Los Angeles office, is a member of the firm’s litigation and intellectual property workgroups. He has extensive experience in complex litigation in federal and state courts, including the litigation of intellectual property and commercial disputes for high-technology companies. Mr. Birnholz has been selected by Los Angeles Magazine for inclusion in Southern California "Rising Stars" in 2004 and Southern California "Super Lawyers" in 2017 for the twelfth consecutive year.

While serving on the editorial board of the UCLA Law Review, Mr. Birnholz published a comment entitled "The Validity and Propriety of Contingent Fee Controls," 37 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 949 (1990). Before joining Irell & Manella LLP, Mr. Birnholz served as a law clerk to the Honorable Pamela Ann Rymer, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and as an extern for the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Read More

Representative Matters

  • Immersion v. Apple – Currently representing Immersion in multi-patent action pending before the International Trade Commission involving tactile feedback functionality in Apple devices.

    TiVo v. Samsung – Currently representing TiVo in patent infringement against Samsung pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case involves TiVo’s claims under four patents relating to digital video recording technologies.

  • The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Symantec – Represents Columbia in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia against Symantec involving antivirus and anomaly detection inventions.
  • Motorola Mobility Inc. v. TiVo Inc./ TiVo Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. – Represented TiVo Inc. in patent litigation over DVR technology against Motorola Mobility and Cisco Systems.  On June 6, 2013, shortly before the start of trial, Motorola and Cisco agreed to pay $490 million to TiVo to resolve the litigation.
  • TiVo v. Verizon – Represented TiVo in a patent infringement suit against Verizon accusing the company of infringing three of TiVo's DVR technology patents.  In September 2012, shortly before trial was scheduled to begin, a settlement was reached in which Verizon agreed to provide TiVo with total compensation worth at least $250.4 million.  As part of the settlement, TiVo and Verizon agreed to dismiss all pending litigation between the companies with prejudice.  The parties also entered into a cross license of their respective patent portfolios in the advanced television field.
  • TiVo v. AT&T – Represented TiVo in a suit against AT&T, alleging that AT&T's U-verse products and services infringed three of TiVo's patents covering DVR technology.  In 2010, AT&T launched a counter-suit in California accusing TiVo DVRs of violating three AT&T patents.  In January 2012, just days before a trial on TiVo's patents, AT&T agreed to pay TiVo a minimum of $215 million, plus additional fees in case AT&T's DVR subscriber base exceeds certain levels. 
  • Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. v. Atmel Corporation – Represented Atmel in multi-patent lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in which Infineon and Atmel asserted claims and counterclaims against each other relating to semiconductor technologies.  After a successful claim construction hearing, the matter was resolved. 
  • IpVenture, Inc. v. Asus – Representing IpVenture in patent infringement action against Asus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of patents relating to thermal management for computers.  
  • IpVenture, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al. – Representing IpVenture in patent infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of patents relating to thermal management for computers. After reaching settlements with several defendants, current parties in the action are Dell, Acer and Toshiba.
  • IpVenture, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc. and Panasonic Corporation of North America, et al. – Represented IpVenture in patent infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringing of patents relating to thermal management for computers.  Case settled.
  • Quantum World Corporation v. Atmel Corporation et al. – Represented Atmel in connection with patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas involving patents on random number generators asserted against personal computers containing "Trusted Platform Module" security chips. The case against Atmel settled on mutually satisfactory terms, and all claims against Atmel were dismissed with prejudice.
  • Internet Services LLC v. Immersion - Represented Immersion in a longstanding dispute brought by one of its patent licensees. In 2004, ISLLC asserted claims seeking a share of Immersion's $82 million patent infringement recovery from Sony Computer Entertainment (a case in which Irell also represented Immersion). After removing the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Immersion prevailed on all of ISLLC's claims, which were either dismissed on successful motions for judgment on the pleadings or motions for summary judgment. Immersion also asserted counterclaims against ISLLC, which were settled in August 2008.
  • Microsoft v. Immersion – Represented Immersion in Microsoft's breach of contract action against Immersion in the Western District of Washington seeking a share of Immersion's recoveries in Immersion's patent infringement lawsuit against Sony. Immersion asserted breach of contract counterclaims against Microsoft. All claims and counterclaims were settled on mutually satisfactory terms. 
  • TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corporation  – Represented TiVo in connection with patent infringement suits in the Eastern District of Texas involving digital video recording ("DVR") products and services. In March 2004, TiVo filed an action against EchoStar for patent infringement. In May 2006, a team of lawyers from Irell & Manella LLP obtained a jury verdict in favor of TiVo that EchoStar willfully  infringed a TiVo patent and awarding TiVo $74 million in damages (plus additional amounts for interest and supplemental  damages). The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment. In 2005, EchoStar filed a separate patent infringement lawsuit against TiVo based on patents acquired from a third party. In July 2006, the Court granted TiVo's motion to stay EchoStar's action against TiVo.  In February 2011, the Court lifted the stay after the conclusion of certain reexamination proceedings and reopened the action as to the one patent remaining in the case.  In May 2011, the Court dismissed the case pursuant to TiVo’s settlement with EchoStar under which EchoStar agreed to pay TiVo a total of $500 million.  
  • Immersion Corporation v. Sony Computer Entertainment and Microsoft Corporation – Represented Immersion in patent infringement suit alleging that various PlayStation and Xbox video game products infringe two patents relating to tactile feedback systems. In July 2003, Microsoft settled with Immersion for approximately $26 million plus additional consideration. In September 2004, after a five-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Immersion, finding all asserted patent claims valid and infringed and awarding $82 million in damages. In February 2007, after Immersion prevailed in a series of post-trial proceedings, Sony paid Immersion approximately $150 million, which included Sony's satisfaction in full of the judgment, as well as payment of interest, compulsory license payments, and future royalties. Mr. Birnholz also represented Immersion in patent litigation in the Northern District of California against InterAct Accessories, and represents Immersion in various matters relating to the company's intellectual property.
  • IpVenture, Inc. v. ProStar Computer and Midern Computer - Represented IpVenture in patent infringement suit in the Central District of California alleging infringing of patents relating to thermal management for computers. Mr. Birnholz successfully prosecuted an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and obtained a reversal of the district court's ruling that a third party was a co-owner of the patent-in-suit. The Federal Circuit's published opinion in favor of IpVenture is reported at IPVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Computer, Inc., 503 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On remand, the case settled and concluded with the Court entering a consent judgment of infringement, validity and enforceability of the patent-in-suit.
  • Novartis Consumer Health v. Elan Transdermal Technologies – Represented Elan in patent suit in which Elan and Novartis asserted claims and counterclaims alleging infringement of patents relating to transdermal nicotine patch smoking cessation aids.
  • Bayer v. Elan Corporation – Represented Elan Corporation in three separate actions alleging infringement of patents relating to pharmaceutical formulations. In the first suit, the firm obtained summary judgment of non-infringement and prosecution history estoppel, and an affirmance in the Federal Circuit.
  • Bloomstein v. Lucas Digital – Represented Lucas Digital (Industrial Light & Magic) in two separate actions alleging infringement of patents claimed to cover movie special effects involving speech animation. The first suit involved visual effects for Forrest Gump. Judgment of non-infringement, and invalidity of one of two patents asserted, was entered in favor of Lucas Digital and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The second suit involved effects for Star Wars: Episode II, Attack of the Clones among other films. The plaintiff dismissed this suit after successful motions to transfer venue.
  • Sonus Pharmaceuticals v. Molecular Biosystems – Represented Sonus Pharmaceuticals in action alleging infringement of patents relating to "ultrasound contrast agents." Also represented Sonus in litigation against DuPont involving the same patents.
  • Trilogy Software v. – Represented in patent infringement suit alleging infringement of business method patents relating to methods of configuring systems.
  • Michelson v. Wright Medical Technologies, Inc.– Represented inventor Dr. Gary Michelson in action alleging breach of contract and related claims involving technology for cervical plates used in spinal fusion surgery.
  • Hollywood Video v. – Represented The Times Mirror Company and its former subsidiary Hollywood Online in action alleging that the use of the Hollywood Sign and other marks on the Internet site "" infringed certain Hollywood Video trademarks.
  • Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. v. HPM Corporation – Represented HPM Corporation in action alleging infringement of patents relating to the design of platens used during clamping on injection molding machines.
  • California Pharmacists Association v. Thrifty Drug Stores – Defended Thrifty Drug Stores from independent pharmacists' allegations of unfair competition and antitrust allegations relating to alleged "below cost" pricing in connection with HMO prescription drug reimbursement plans.
View More
View More
View More

Seminars & Speaking Engagements

  • CalCPA Forensic Services Section: All Sections Joint Meeting (2013, Oakland) – Speaker, “Apple v. Samsung and Other Hot Patent Damages Topics"
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association (2013, Webinar) – Panelist, "Admissibility of Settlements and Negotiations in Patent Litigation: Update and Strategy"
  • IPO Conference (2009, Chicago) – Panelist and Speaker, "Remedies: Damages and Injunctive Relief from Various Perspectives"
  • IPO Annual Meeting (2005, Seattle) – Panelist and Speaker, "Rules Aren't Made To Be Broken – Follow Them Or Risk The Consequences!" (Federal Rules of Evidence)
View More
View More
View More

Bar & Court Admissions

  • 1990, California
  • 1992, U.S. District Court, Central, Northern, Eastern and Southern Districts of California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth and Federal Circuits