• Columbia University School of Law (J.D., 1994); Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, Editor for the Journal of Chinese Law
  • Stanford University (B.S., Electrical Engineering, 1991) (B.A., History, 1991); Member of the Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society

Samuel K. Lu is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Irell & Manella LLP, where he is a member of the intellectual property and litigation practice groups. Mr. Lu counsels and represents clients in patent, trademark, trade secret, and other intellectual property matters.

Mr. Lu has lectured on a number of patent issues, most recently on "The Markman Hearing: A Patent Holder's Perspective on Planning, Preparing, and Negotiating" and "The Fundamentals of Preliminary Injunctions, Permanent Injunctions, and Temporary Restraining Orders in Patent Cases."

Mr. Lu has been selected for inclusion in Los Angeles Magazine's Southern California Super Lawyers in intellectual property litigation and intellectual property in 2011-2016.

Read More

Representative Matters

Representative matters include the following:

Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm (N.D. Cal.):  Representing Lam in a patent infringement lawsuit involving semiconductor etch process technology. Also representing Lam in concurrent inter partes reviews involving the same patents.

Converse Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (ITC, E.D.N.Y):  Representing Skechers in a trademark infringement lawsuit involving Converse’s claimed trademark in the midsole design of its Chuck Taylor All Star sneakers. Following a trial at the International Trade Commission, Converse’s claimed trademark was found invalid. In addition, Skechers’ Twinkle Toes and BOBS sneakers were found not to infringe, even if Converse’s claimed trademark were valid.

SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. et al. (D.Del.):  Representing SoftView against Apple and Android smart phone manufacturers in a litigation and in inter partes reviews involving patents relating to web browsers for mobile devices.

Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Mass., D. Mass.):  Represented Skyhook Wireless against Google in two separate lawsuits:  a patent infringement lawsuit relating to Wi-Fi location technology and a state business torts case.

Poris v. Novellus Systems, Inc. (N.D. Cal.):  Represented Novellus in a patent infringement lawsuit involving semiconductor processing equipment for use in copper plating.  Novellus was awarded a summary judgment of non-infringement. 

TiVo Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (N.D. Cal., ITC):  Represented TiVo in three lawsuits brought by Microsoft in district court and in the International Trade Commission relating to hardware and software for digital set top boxes.  These lawsuits were brought after TiVo sued one of Microsoft's customers.  Following a trial at the International Trade Commission, Microsoft agreed to dismiss all three lawsuits.

TiVo Inc. v. AT&T Inc. (N.D. Cal, E.D. Tex.):  Represented TiVo in two separate lawsuits, one brought by TiVo and one brought by AT&T, relating to digital video recording technology as well as hardware and software for digital set top boxes.

NXP N.V. v. LSI Corp. (N.D. Cal.):  Represented LSI in a set of patent litigations involving semiconductor manufacturing technology and circuit design.

AmberWave Systems Corp. v. Intel Corp. (D. Del., E.D. Tex.):  Represented AmberWave, a company founded by an MIT professor and his students, in a set of patent litigations relating to advanced semiconductor materials and manufacturing processes.

Netcraft Corp. v. eBay Inc. and PayPal Inc. (W.D. Wis.):  Represented eBay and PayPal in a patent infringement suit brought by Netcraft relating to a method of making online payments.  eBay and PayPal were awarded a summary judgment of non-infringement, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. 

Knowles Electronics, LLC v. AAC Acoustic Technologies Holdings, Inc. (N.D. Ill.):  Represented AAC, a Chinese manufacturer of MEMS-based microphones, in a trade secret litigation.  After an eleven-day hearing, the Court found in AAC's favor, finding that the trade secrets alleged to have been misappropriated were neither trade secrets nor used by AAC.

Avago Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (N.D. Cal.):  Represented Avago in the Northern District of California against Microsoft in a case involving the misappropriation of trade secrets by a former employee of Avago's.

Avago Technologies, Inc. v. PixArt Imaging, Inc. (N.D. Cal.):  Represented Avago in the Northern District of California against PixArt in a patent infringement action relating to Avago's optical mouse sensor technology.

Applied Materials v. Novellus Systems, Inc. (N.D. Cal.):  Represented Novellus in the Northern District of California against Applied Materials in an action involving semiconductor manufacturing equipment.  Applied Materials first sued Novellus for patent infringement after Novellus acquired the Thin Film Systems Division of Varian Associates.  Novellus counterclaimed that Applied Materials infringed Novellus' patents.  After extensive litigation, the only claims remaining to be tried were Novellus' patent infringement claims against Applied Materials, whereupon the case settled.

Semitool, Inc. v. Novellus Systems, Inc. (N.D. Cal.):  Represented Novellus in the Northern District of California against Semitool in an action alleging patent infringement by Novellus' copper plating semiconductor manufacturing equipment.  The case was decided in favor of Novellus on summary judgment and twice affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Plantronics, Inc. v. Fashion Electronics, Inc., Datel Design and Development, Ltd., and ESI Cases and Accessories, Inc. (N.D. Cal.):  Represented Plantronics in the Northern District of California in multiple actions in which Plantronics asserted design patent infringement, trade dress, and unfair competition claims relating to defendants' sales of cell phone headsets.

View More
View More
View More
View More
View More
View More

Bar & Court Admissions

  • 1994, California
  • 1995, New York
  • 1995, U.S. District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York
  • 1995, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • 1996, U.S. Patent Office
  • 1998, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
  • 2000, U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • 2001, U.S. Supreme Court