Our Website Uses Cookies 

We and the third parties that provide content, functionality, or business services on our website may use cookies to collect information about your browsing activities in order to provide you with more relevant content and promotional materials, on and off the website, and help us understand your interests and improve the website.

For more information, please contact us or consult our Privacy Notice.

Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.

We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.

This page has been added to your binder.

Patrick Flynn is a special counsel in the Intellectual Property Litigation practice group and is based in the firm’s Palo Alto office.

Mr. Flynn focuses his practice with a particular emphasis on patent litigation. He has represented leading electronics companies in some of the most important districts for patent cases, including the Northern District of California, the District of Delaware, and the Eastern District of Texas. He has litigated cases involving a broad range of technologies, including mobile phone software, digital signal processors, Ethernet networking, 802.11 networking, and programmable mixed signal integrated circuits.

  • CSIRO v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, (E.D. Tex.) Represented Texas Instruments in a patent infringement action involving the physical layer of the IEEE 802.11 standard.
  • Represented Texas Instruments in a patent trial in the Eastern District of Texas involving Ethernet networking.
  • Preparation of two petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) for various Samsung entities concerning patents related to media sharing between devices.
  • Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Silego Technology, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Represented Silego Technology in a patent infringement action involving customizable mixed signal integrated circuits.
  • Cradle IP, LLC v. Texas Instruments Incorporated (D. Del.). Represented Texas Instruments in a patent infringement action involving digital signal processors. Won summary judgment of non-infringement on the majority of claims and a stipulation of non-infringement for the remaining claims. The District Court’s ruling was upheld by the Federal Circuit.