Karan Jhurani is an associate in the Atlanta office of Fish & Richardson P.C. Karan has a multi-faceted practice, which emphasizes complex patent litigation, patent prosecution and counseling, and post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Karan’s litigation practice focuses on representing clients in actions filed in U.S. district courts across the country and at the International Trade Commission. He has substantial experience in all major aspects of litigation, including pre-suit diligence, managing discovery, deposing fact and expert witnesses, conducting cross-examination of witnesses at trial, and pre-trial and post-trial briefing. In his litigation practice, Karan has experience working with various technologies, such as microlithography and optics, portable device power management, object-relational mapping technology, search engine algorithms, microprocessor design and operation, digital image and video processing technology, cellular communication standards, audio and video decoding technologies, and consumer electronics (e.g., televisions, mobile phones, tablets).
Karan has deep expertise in managing large patent portfolios, performing due diligence, and providing strategic IP counseling to a range clients, from early stage companies to industry leaders. Additionally, Karan has significant experience in preparing and prosecuting patent applications, with many of these applications being directed to technologies that utilize Internet of Things (IoT), software as a service (SAAS), RF power electronics, CPU architectures, financial technologies, machine learning, big data, business intelligence and advanced analytics, relational databases, e-commerce solutions, mobile security, mobile applications, manufacturing plant operational management, and many more.
At the PTAB, Karan has successfully represented both patent owners and petitioners in post-grant proceedings. In addition to petition and brief drafting in these proceedings, Karan specializes in developing high-level case strategies and legal theories for his clients.
Prior to entering the practice of law, Karan worked as a senior consultant at IBM where he designed and implemented SaaS technology solutions for multiple Fortune 500 companies. Through his professional experience and education, Karan is proficient in multiple software programming languages and various software design principles, including object-oriented design, multi-tier architectures, and relational database design.
J.D. with honors, Order of the Coif, Emory University School of Law (2014) Editor, IP Theory Law Publication; Emory Transactional Program Negotiation Team
B.S. with highest honors, Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology (2009)
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 2015
- Georgia 2014
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 2010
- Carl Zeiss v. Nikon – ITC 1: Counsel for Carl Zeiss and ASML in a patent dispute concerning digital cameras.
- Carl Zeiss v. Nikon – ITC 2: Counsel for Carl Zeiss and ASML in a patent dispute concerning lithography machines
- Eight Street Solutions v. McAfee: Counsel for McAfee in a patent dispute relating to antivirus technologies.
- Looksmart v. Microsoft: Counsel for Microsoft in a patent dispute concerning search engines.
- Uniloc v. Microsoft: Counsel for Microsoft in a patent dispute relating to DRM and antivirus technologies.
Newly Added Cases
Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same (ITC 2017): Counsel for MediaTek and MStar in an ITC investigation brought by Broadcom concerning video processing hardware and software.
Tivo Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (E.D. Tex. 2015) (Gilstrap, J): Counsel for Samsung in a patent infringement dispute concerning video processing in mobile devices and DVR set-top boxes.
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Computers, Tablet Computers, Digital Media Players, and Cameras (ITC 2015) (Shaw, ALJ): Counsel for respondent in an ITC investigation brought by Ericsson involving battery software technology.
Abstrax, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2014) (Gilstrap, J.): Counsel for Hewlett-Packard in a patent infringement dispute concerning assembly instruction generating software.
American Radionic Company, Inc. v. Packard Inc. et al. (M.D. Fla. 2014) (Dalton, J.): Counsel for American Radionic in a patent infringement dispute concerning motor run capacitors for HVAC applications.
- Husky v. Plastipak – counsel for patent owner. Part of team that was successful in having the PTAB deny institution on all patents on which IPRs were filed.
- Quantum Metric v. Content Square – counsel for petitioner
- Esselte Corp. et al. v. DYMO (PTAB 2015): Counsel for DYMO in connection with an inter partes review petition relating to printer software technology.
- “Damages for Anticipated Future Use of Trade Secrets,” Fish Litigation Blog (October 2019)
- “PTAB Publishes Update to AIA Trial Practice Guide,” Fish Post-Grant News (July 2019)
- “Post Grant for Practitioners: Post-Grant 101,” Fish Post-Grant Webinar (September 2020)
- “International Microwave Power Institute (IMPI): Intellectual Property Basics and Best Practices for Innovators,” Fish Litigation Webinar (October 2020)