Andrei Iancu is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Irell & Manella LLP, where he is a member of the litigation and intellectual property practice groups. Mr. Iancu is currently serving on the firm's Executive Committee, and is vice-chair of the Hiring Committee.

Mr. Iancu’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation. Mr. Iancu has also been involved in all other aspects of the intellectual property practice, including patent and trademark prosecution, due diligence and licensing. He is registered to practice in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Mr. Iancu has represented clients across the technology spectrum, including those associated with medical devices, the Internet, telephony, TV broadcasting, video game systems and computer peripherals.

Mr. Iancu has been recognized as a leading intellectual property/patent lawyer by Chambers & Partners in its Chambers USA Leading Lawyers for Business Guide in 2007, 2008 and 2009.  The Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journals named Mr. Iancu one of the top 20 California attorneys under 40 years of age in 2006, and one of California's leading patent litigators in 2008. He has also been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America for 2007, 2008, 2009 and again for 2010 in the specialty area of commercial litigation. Mr.Iancu has been named one of Southern California's Best Lawyers by the Los Angeles Times Magazine. Mr. Iancu was named to the Southern California "Super Lawyers" list in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Mr. Iancu was also profiled in a feature article by the Super Lawyers magazine (February 2009 issue). In addition, Mr. Iancu was selected to the Southern California "Rising Stars" list in 2007 by Los Angeles Magazine. Mr. Iancu has received an "AV" rating from Martindale-Hubbell, which is the highest rating awarded by that firm.

Mr. Iancu regularly speaks and writes on patent law and practice. In 2009, he was awarded the 36th Annual Rossman Award from the Patent and Trademark Office Society for his article Code on Disks and Hat Tricks - Is Computer Software on a Medium Really Patentable?, Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society (February 2008).  This award is given for the Journal article that "makes the greatest contribution to the fields of patents, trademarks and copyrights" during the publication year.  Other recent publications include a chapter in PLI’s Patent Litigation handbook (revised annually); Balancing the Four Factors in Permanent Injunction Decisions: A Review of Post-eBay Case Law, Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society (May 2007); The Patent Reform Act of 2007: Attempting to Modernize the U.S. Patent System, Federal Bar Association Newsletter (Winter 2008); and Redefining Prior Art Under Proposed Patent Reform Measures, ALM's Patent Strategy and Management Journal (in two parts, June and July 2008).

Mr. Iancu has a Bachelor’s Degree in Aerospace Engineering and a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering, both from UCLA. Prior to law school, Mr. Iancu was an engineer at Hughes Aircraft Co. where he received several awards including the Malcolm R. Currie Innovation Award. He is still licensed as a Professional Engineer in California.

Representative Matters

• Peer Communications v. eBay and Skype (E.D. Texas)
  Represented defendants eBay and Skype in a patent infringement suit related to internet communications, including what is known as VoIP (voice over internet protocol). The plaintiff was a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp. After claim construction, the district court entered judgment for eBay and Skype based on patent invalidity and dismissed the case with prejudice. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where Mr. Iancu argued on eBay and Skype's behalf.  
•  TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications, Inc. (E.D. Texas)
  Represented TiVo in a patent infringement suit related to pioneering digital video recorder (DVR) technology. A jury found all of TiVo's asserted claims to be valid and infringed, and awarded TiVo $74 million in damages. The jury also found the infringement to be willful.
• Immersion Corp. v. Sony Computer Entertainment (N.D. Cal.)
  Represented Immersion in a patent infringement suit related to tactile feedback technology for computer simulations. A jury found all of Immersion's asserted claims to be valid and infringed and awarded Immersion $82 million in damages.
• Grayzel v. St. Jude Medical (D.N.J.)
  Represented defendant St. Jude Medical in a patent infringement suit related to vascular closure devices. The district court found all asserted claims to be invalid and dismissed the case in St. Jude's favor. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where Mr. Iancu argued on St. Jude's behalf.
• Edwards Lifesciences v. St. Jude Medical (C.D. Cal.)
  Represented defendant St. Jude Medical in a patent infringement suit on four patents related to annuloplasty rings and the treatment of animal valves for implantation in humans. The case was successfully settled after several wins by St. Jude on summary judgment.
• Xerox v. Hewlett-Packard (W.D.N.Y.)
  Represented defendant Hewlett-Packard in a number of complex cases related to printing technology. The parties settled after a district court found on summary judgment that Hewlett-Packard does not infringe a Xerox patent.
• Michelson v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
  Represented plaintiff Michelson in a breach of contract case related to technology on spinal implants. The case settled favorably.
• Mr. Iancu represented a medical device manufacturer in a complex patent infringement suit related to implantable cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators. The case settled favorably to Mr. Iancu's client, with the settlement valued at over $200 million.
• Mr. Iancu represented a hi-tech client in a trademark opposition matter in the Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Iancu negotiated a successful settlement.
• Mr. Iancu represented a bicycle manufacturer in patent prosecution matters resulting in a number of issued patents.

Bar & Court Admissions

• 1996, California
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit