Photo of Bill  Blonigan

Bill Blonigan

Del Mar
T: 858.720.8900
F: 858.509.3691


  • J.D., Boston University, Paul J. Liacos Scholar, American Journal of Law & Medicine, 2007
  • The George Washington University Law School, Visiting Scholar, 2007
  • Tsinghua University School of Law, Beijing, China, Foreign Student, 2006
  • B.B.E.E., Biomedical Engineering with emphasis in Electrical Engineering, University of Minnesota—Institute of Technology, 2003
  • Mr. Blonigan externed at the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in 2007 (soon to be the “Patent Trial & Appeal Board” or “PTAB”).
  • California
  • Supreme Court of California
  • United States Patent & Trademark Office
  • United States District Court for the Central District of California
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of California
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of California
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Publications & News

Mr. Blonigan is an associate in the Intellectual Property (IP) Practice Group in the firm’s Del Mar office.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Blonigan has been vigorously protecting and defending his clients’ intellectual property rights in federal district courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since 2007. He has specialized in patent law since 2004, when he studied nights and weekends to pass the patent bar exam while working as an engineer for a start-up medical-device company developing electrical, software, and biochemical solutions for diabetes patients. His practical experience developing products and deep knowledge of intellectual property law help him creatively, efficiently, and favorably resolve his clients' disputes through licensing, mediation, or trial. 

Mr. Blonigan has litigated patent, copyright, trademark, trade dress, and trade secret disputes in California state court as well as federal district courts in California, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas. He has also helped clients build and maintain patent portfolios and obtain trademark rights from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In law school, he worked as an extern law clerk to several USPTO Administrative Patent Judges in Washington D.C., assisting with interferences and appeals in the electrical, chemical, and mechanical arts. 

Mr. Blonigan is also involved in his community as both a legal advisor and business owner, giving his law practice a compassionate, unique, and practical business perspective. He provides pro bono legal services to indigent clients in San Diego and Orange County who need help resolving immigration and intellectual property matters.

TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd., TCT Mobile Ltd., and TCT Mobile Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc. (California, Central District)—Represent TCL in breach-of-contract and declaratory-judgment action relating to declared standard-essential patents (SEPs) and the related obligation to license those patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms under the intellectual-property rights (IPR) policies of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) relating to 2G GSM/GPRS/EDGE, 3G UMTS and 4G LTE technologies.

Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd., TCT Mobile Ltd., and TCT Mobile Inc. (Texas, Eastern District)—Represent TCL and TCT Mobile in a seven-patent action relating to patents alleged to cover aspects of cellular telephone hardware, including the touch screen, and the Android operating system, as well as cellular-network infrastructure, including base stations.

Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., the General Automobile Insurance Services, Inc., Permanent General Assurance Corp. of Ohio, QuinStreet, Inc., and (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit & California, Northern Dist.)—Represented in successfully invalidating asserted patent on Internet-browser functionality on an early motion to dismiss and sustaining favorable judgment on appeal.

LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., NexTag, Inc., QuinStreet, Inc., QuinStreet Media, Inc., and Adchemy, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit & North Carolina, Western Dist.)—Represent plaintiff in two-patent infringement litigation involving a method and computer network for coordinating a loan over the Internet. Successfully defeated antitrust claims brought against LendingTree. The case is currently on appeal.

Wi-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al. (Texas, Eastern Dist.)—Represent defendant HTC in patent litigation regarding processing data transmitted and received over a wireless link connecting a central terminal and a subscriber terminal of a wireless telecommunications system. Secured favorable jury verdicts of non-infringement and patent invalidity.

Cook, Inc. v. Endologix, Inc. (Indiana, Southern Dist.)—Represented defendant in medical-device patent litigation.

Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. v. Tabari (California, Central Dist.)—Represented defendant pro bono to obtain favorable settlement after appeal.

Partners in Leadership, Inc. v. Questmark LLC (Pennsylvania, Western Dist.)—Represented plaintiff in trademark and copyright dispute to stop defendant’s use of proprietary sales-training materials.  Secured favorable settlement for client.

Edwards Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc. (Delaware)—Represented defendant through trial in patent litigation involving self-expanding, percutaneously delivered aortic heart-valve replacement. 

Rev Wheel, LLC v. American Racing Equipment, LLC (California, Central Dist.)—Represented plaintiff in trademark-invalidity and unfair-competition claims relating to after-market vehicle wheels.  Secured favorable settlement for client.

Treasure Garden, Inc. v. Wanda Ying Li (California, Central Dist.)—Represented declaratory-judgment plaintiff asserting patent invalidity.  Secured favorable settlement for client. 


  • "Establishing The Weight of Evidence After Sciele," Law360, August 13, 2012
  • National Reports: In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Reexamination No. 90/006,785), European Intellectual Property Review, Vol. 31, Issue 1, at N–15 (2009)
  • Road Under Construction: Administrative Claim Interpretations and a Path of Greater Deference from the Federal Circuit to the Patent Office, 35 American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal 415 (2007)
  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Sponsoring Terminated Clinical Trial Not Obligated to Continue Providing Drug to Volunteers—Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 32 American Journal of Law & Medicine 412 (2006) 

Intellectual Property Law Blog Posts

Speaking Engagements

  • AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.: Patent Damages, Apportionment, the Smallest-Salable Patent-Practicing Unit, and the Entire Market Value Rule,” May 5, 2015
  • CLE Case Study: Wallenfang v. Havel, No. 08-C-288, 2010 WL 1490831 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 13, 2010); Nat’l Prods., Inc. v. Gamber-Johnson LLC, 699 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (W.D. Wash. 2010), Aug. 26 & Sept. 3, 2010
  • CLE Case Study: Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc. v. Federal-Mogul Corp., No. 2009-1135 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2009), Sept. 18 & 25, 2009
  • CLE Case Study: Ex parte Fu, Appeal No. 2008-0601 (B.P.A.I. 2008), May 8 & 15, 2009
  • “Patent Term Extension based on FDA Approval of Medical Devices,” Oct. 13, 2008
  • CLE Case Study: In re Rivastigmine Patent Litig., 83 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1923 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), Jan. 11 & 18, 2008
  • American Bar Association (ABA)
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
  • Federal Bar Association, San Diego Chapter