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 2008 for the fourth 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.

Representative Matters

Representative cases on which Mr. Birnholz has worked include the following:

Quantum World Corporation v. Atmel Corporation et al. – Represents Atmel in connection with patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas involving patents on random number generators.

Microsoft v. Immersion – Represents Immersion in a breach of contract action pending in the Western District of Washington brought by Microsoft seeking a share of Immersion's recoveries in Immersion's patent infringement lawsuit against Sony.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corporation – Represents 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).  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 pending the completion of reexamination of the patents in the United States Patent Office.

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 $35 million. 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. Mr. Birnholz also represented Immersion in patent litigation against InterAct Accessories, and represents Immersion in various litigation matters relating to the company's intellectual property.

IpVenture, Inc. v. ProStar Computer and Midern Computer - Represents IpVenture in patent infringement suit pending 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.

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. Carsdirect.com – Represented Carsdirect.com in patent infringement suit alleging infringement of 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. hollywood.com – 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 "hollywood.com" 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.

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