Photo of Gary  Clark

Gary Clark

Of Counsel
Los Angeles
T: 213.617.4197
F: 213.620.1398

Education

  • J.D., University of California, Los Angeles, 1975
  • M.S., Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, 1971, National Science Foundation Traineeship
  • B.S., Electrical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, 1970, summa cum laude
  • California
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Federal Circuits
  • California federal district courts, and various other districts
Overview
Honors
Experience
Publications & News

Gary A. Clark is Of Counsel in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's Los Angeles office.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Clark has specialized throughout his career in the litigation of intellectual property disputes, with an emphasis on patent infringement cases, having represented such clients as Acer, Amgen, Bausch & Lomb, Lenovo, MasterCard, Northrop Grumman, Taylor Made Golf and 3M. He has extensive experience as lead trial counsel in the federal courts, having tried numerous jury and non-jury cases, and in contested proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission, the American Arbitration Association, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Clark is recognized for his expertise by Best Lawyers and as one of the leading IP litigators in California by the Daily Journal. He is a registered Patent Attorney.

  • Who's Who in Intellectual Property Law, Los Angeles Business Journal, 2012
  • Top IP Litigator, Daily Journal, 2012, 2013
  • Fifty Leading IP Litigators in California, Daily Journal, 2008
  • Master of the Bench, Los Angeles Intellectual Property Inn of Court
  • Best Lawyer in America, Best Lawyers, 2007-2017
  • Southern California Super Lawyer, 2008-2016

Selected IP disputes handled by Mr. Clark include:

  • Defended Taylor Made Golf against claim of infringement of patents for customizable golf club heads and in reexamination of the patents. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement. (E.D. Tex.) The Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.
  • Member of defense team in successful defense of Endicia and PSI Systems in a patent infringement case involving 11 patents with over 600 asserted claims relating to Internet postage technology. After the case was narrowed to assertion of 15 claims of 8 patents, obtained summary judgment of invalidity. (C.D. Cal.) The judgment was affirmed on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
  • Defending MasterCard International in two cases against claim of infringement of patent relating to use of a smart card in a system for automatic connection to a network. In the first case, persuaded the district court to render expedited claim construction ruling, while staying discovery, resulting in stipulated judgment of non-infringement. (C.D. Cal.) The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment.
  • Represented The Brinkmann Corporation, a Texas-based consumer products company, in a trademark opposition proceeding and related Federal Circuit appeal. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision in Brinkmann's favor was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
  • Defending Mole-Richardson Co., a leading Hollywood lighting company, against claim of infringement of patents for light diffusion boxes and in reexamination of one patent in suit. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on other patent in suit. (C.D. Cal.) Prevailed on reexamination; Federal Circuit appeal pending.
  • Defended Amgen against charge of infringement of patent relating to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor as member of multi-firm defense team. Obtained first summary judgment that was vacated on appeal to the Federal Circuit, followed by second summary judgment that was affirmed on appeal. (C.D. Cal.)
  • Defended Lenovo against claim of infringement of patents for random number generators for computers. Case settled on eve of trial. (E.D. Tex.)
  • Represented Beckman Coulter, a major biomedical instrument manufacturer, for infringement by Applera of patents relating to molecular separation technology and biological incubators for DNA sequencing. Case settled on eve of trial. (C.D. Cal.)
  • Represented Encore Video, a leading Hollywood post-production company, for infringement of patent for system for electronic weave correction in film‑to‑video transfers. Obtained jury verdict of validity and infringement. (C.D. Cal.)
  • Defended Genlyte, a major lighting manufacturer, against claim of infringement of patent for lighting control system. In bench trial, obtained judgment that the patent was invalid and unenforceable for inequitable conduct and award of attorneys' fees. (C.D. Cal.)
  • Represented Antenna Downlink for infringement of its patents for microwave feed assemblies by Chaparral Communications. Obtained favorable jury verdict in part and resolution of other issues on post-trial motions, after which case settled. (C.D. Cal.)
  • Defended The Brinkmann Corporation against claim of infringement of patent for flashlight, and related trademark and trade dress infringement claims. After full hearing in ITC proceeding, client was only respondent to prevail on all issues, and then successfully defended client in jury trial of the trade dress claims. Case settled. (N.D. Tex.)

Reported cases: Dogleg Right Partners v. TaylorMade Golf Company, Inc., _ _ _ Fed. Appx. _ _ _, No. 2011-1537 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 19, 2012); Smartmetric Inc. v. MasterCard International, Incorporated, _ _ _ Fed. Appx. _ _ _, No. 2011-1497 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2012); Stamps.com Inc. v. Endicia, Inc., 437 Fed. Appx. 897 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Mag Instrument, Inc. v. The Brinkmann Corporation, _ _ _ Fed. Appx. _ _ _, Nos. 2011-1052,-1053 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2011); Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen Inc., 475 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007), 401 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2005)  Terlep v. The Brinkmann Corporation, 418 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Campbell Plastics Eng'g & Mfg. v. Brownlee, 389 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Flex-Foot, Inc. v. CRP, Inc., 238 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Globe‑Union, Inc. v. Tiegel Manufacturing Co., 228 U.S.P.Q. 58 (N.D. Cal. 1985); GTY Industries v. The Genlyte Group, Inc., 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Hewlett‑Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 115 F.R.D. 308 (N.D. Cal. 1987), 116 F.R.D. 533 (N.D. Cal. 1987), 722 F. Supp. 592 (N.D. Cal. 1988), 692 F. Supp. 1118 (N.D. Cal. 1988), 882 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1989), 722 F. Supp. 595 (N.D. Cal. 1989), 746 F. Supp. 1413 (N.D. Cal. 1990), 909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990), 925 F.2d 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1991), 21 U.S.P.Q.2D 2037 (N.D. Cal. 1991); Interpart Corp. v. Imos Italia, 777 F.2d 678 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Mag Instrument, Inc. v. J. Baxter Brinkmann International Corp., 229 U.S.P.Q. 393 (C.D. Cal. 1985), 123 F.R.D. 543 (N.D. Tex. 1988); Mag Instrument, Inc. v. U.S. Intl. Trade Comm'n., 868 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Novitas, Inc. v. The Genlyte Group, Inc., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21084 (C.D. Cal. 1995), 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21089 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Nucleonics Development Co. v. Seymour, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Polaris Pool Systems, Inc. v. Letro Products, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1513 (C.D. Cal. 1995), 161 F.R.D. 422 (C.D. Cal. 1995), 886 F. Supp. 1513 (C.D. Cal. 1995), 914 F. Supp. 375 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Refac International, Ltd. v. Hitachi, Ltd., 921 F.2d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Tech‑Wear, Inc. v. Acme Laundry Products, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Tiegel Manufacturing Co. v. Globe‑Union, Inc., 224 U.S.P.Q. 1077 (D. Del. 1984).

Articles

Speaking Engagements

  • Mr. Clark has lectured and written on the litigation of intellectual property disputes