Russell Tonkovich

Partner

contact

650.825.4300 x106
rtonkovich@albertilim.com

Dr. Russell Tonkovich is an experienced trial lawyer with more than two decades of experience litigating complex patent infringement cases in district courts throughout the country as well as in the ITC. He is the Co-Chair of the firm’s Life Sciences & Medical Devices Practice and has decades of experience litigating diverse technologies including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, DNA arrays and sequencing, computer architecture, semiconductor design and fabrication, memory architecture, user interface technologies, LED design and fabrication, cellular and Wi-Fi functionality, and optical networking technologies.

Russell is also a leading appellate advocate who has won positive results for clients at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, including the University of Michigan. As a nationally recognized patent litigator, Russell, along with the team at Alberti Lim, has won verdicts in some of the largest patent infringement cases in the country such as a $172.55 million jury verdict of willful infringement against Micro Focus Corp., a Hewlett-Packard spin-off company. This resounding victory was the largest jury verdict in the history of the Sherman Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Russell has been selected as among the top 50 best performing and most active patent litigation attorneys in the United States by Patexia.  Russell successfully leads patent litigation teams to success at hearing and trial in district courts, the International Trade Commission, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the Federal Circuit.

Russell is licensed to practice before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). He regularly represents clients in inter partes reviews and ex parte reviews associated with ongoing litigation. Russell has also served as the co-chair of the American Bar Association Intellectual Property Litigation Committee’s Section 112 Subcommittee.

Beyond litigation, Russell works with clients with respect to the valuation and diligence of patent portfolios. He further advises clients on monetization strategies in connection with litigation, licensing programs, and patent acquisitions.

Prior to joining Alberti Lim, Russell worked at Wilmer Hale and Kirkland & Ellis.

significant matters
RightQuestion, LLC v. AT&T, Verizon (E.D. Texas).    Representing RightQuestion in a patent infringement action involving three patents relating to reducing spoofing in telephone networks against major telecommunications companies.
University Client v. AT&T and Verizon (E.D. Texas case No. 25-cv-00054-JRG-RSP).  Representing large research university in a two-patent infringement case relating to Wi-Fi telecommunication inventions against major telecommunications carriers. 
University of Michigan v. Leica Microsystems, Inc. (N.D. California) Representing University of Michigan in a patent infringement action relating to the university’s leading edge fluorescence microscope technology.
Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (E.D. Texas)  Represented Polaris in a patent infringement litigation involving three patents relating to wireless charging, AMOLED displays, and LED display technology implemented in Samsung mobile phones and televisions.
Wapp Technologies, LLC v. Micro Focus, Inc., HP Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Texas)  Represented Wapp Technologies where the firm secured a $172.5 million jury verdict of willful infringement (the full amount requested at trial) at trial, which was the largest verdict at that time in the history of the Sherman Division courthouse in Eastern District of Texas.
Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. VIZIO Inc. (C.D. Cal.)  Represented Polaris in a patent infringement litigation involving automatic brightness control technology implemented in VIZIO televisions.
Broadband iTV, Inc. v. AT&T, DirecTV, Dish Network LLC (W.D. Texas)
 Represented pioneering video on demand and content management technology company, BBiTV, in three consolidated 5-patent cases.
Express Mobile v. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Salesforce, Slack Inc., eBay, Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Tex. & N.D. Cal.)  Represented plaintiff, leading developer of software tools, in large multi-patent related patent infringement cases.
Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (E.D. Texas)
 Represented Polaris in a patent infringement litigation involving automatic brightness control technology implemented in Samsung mobile phones and televisions.
Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc. (N.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.) Represented Nistica in an appeal and secured a victory in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed Nistica’s verdict of noninfringement in two jury trials in the Northern District of California.
Nitride Semiconductors Co., Ltd. v. RayVio Corp. (N.D. Cal.).   Represented RayVio Corp., an acclaimed, venture-backed Silicon Valley UV LED company in a patent infringement case filed by competitor Nitride Semiconductors Co. involving LED patent claims relating to epitaxial layer structures and epitaxial growth techniques.
Nitride Semiconductors Co., Ltd. v. Digi-Key Corp. (D. Minn.).   Represented Digi-Key, an on-line distributor of electronic components and board level components, in an LED patent infringement case filed by a Japanese LED company.
Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al. (D. Del.) Represented Millenium Pharmaceuticals in patent infringement litigation against Sandoz, Accord Healthcare, Acatavis, and Fresenius arising out of their filing of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). Millenium asserted infringement of two patents relating to pharmaceutical formulations.
Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. TEVA Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (D. Del.).  Represented Cubist Pharmaceuticals in patent infringement litigation arising from TEVA’s abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). Achieved a favorable settlement on behalf of Cubist Pharmaceuticals.
Centocor, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. et al. (C.D. Cal.). Represented Genentech in a declaratory judgment action brought by Centocor seeking a declaration that one of Genentech's patents is invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed by Centocor's products. Achieved a favorable settlement.
education
Juris Doctor
Harvard Law School

Medical Doctor (M.D.)
University of Illinois

Bachelor of Science (with Honors), Biochemistry
University of Wisconsin-Madison
admissions
California
N.D. California
C.D. California
S.D. California
E.D. California
E.D. Texas
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Registered to practice before the USPTO
venue experience
E.D. Texas
W.D. Texas
N.D. California
C.D. California
District of Delaware
District of Nevada
Western District of Washington
District of Minnesota
International Trade Commission
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit