Mark D. Fowler

• Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Toshiba Corporation et. al – District of Delaware. Represented Toshiba in a district court action brought by Intellectual Ventures asserting 10 patents involving semiconductor memory chips and consumer electronic products. After narrowing the case through Markman, summary judgment, dismissals and IPRs, three of IV’s eight semiconductor patents went to trial. After an 8-day trial, the jury found in favor of Toshiba, finding that it did not infringe two patents, and finding the third invalid
• Technology Properties Limited (TPL) LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. – United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and Northern District of California. Representing Samsung in patent infringement litigation brought against it by TPL that began in the ITC, where we obtained a no violation finding based upon non-infringement. TPL then turned to the district court, where, after we obtained a favorable Markman ruling, TPL stipulated to non-infringement and appealed to the Federal District. After the Federal Circuit largely upheld the district court’s claim construction, we obtained summary judgment of non-infringement judgment. The case currently is on appeal to the Federal Circuit
• Led the successful defense of a multinational technology company against a US$500 million patent infringement claim relating to live streaming technology in the Northern District of California. The jury found that the asserted patent was not infringed. The judgment was later upheld by the Federal Circuit
• Cresta Technology Corp. v. Samsung Electronics, Silicon Laboratories Inc., et al. – United States International Trade Commission. Represented Respondents Samsung and Silicon Labs in this investigation involving silicon television tuner technology. Following a trial and Initial Determination, the ITC found no violation by our clients
• Led the successful defense of a multi-national technology company in the Northern District of California against a patent infringement claim regarding wireless communication. We obtained summary judgment of non-infringement, which was subsequently upheld on appeal to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision addressed a matter of first impression, namely whether statements made during preliminary proceedings in IPRs can result in a prosecution history disclaimer (the Court ruled that they can)
• Optical Devices, LLC v. Toshiba Corp. et al. – United States International Trade Commission. Represented the Toshiba respondents in this six-patent investigation regarding optical disc drive technology and related servo systems. Obtained Initial Determinations from the ALJ, which were upheld by the Commission, terminating the investigation as to all six patents on the ground that the complainant lacked standing to institute the investigation
• Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. GSI Technology, et al. – United States International Trade Commission and Northern District of California. Represented Respondent GSI Technology, Inc. and certain of its customers in this ITC investigation in which Cypress Semiconductor alleged that GSI's SRAM chips infringed four Cypress patents. The ALJ’s Initial Determination found no infringement as to any of the four patents and no domestic industry. The Commission affirmed the non-infringement and domestic industry findings and further found one of the four patents invalid
• Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. Zoran Corp., et al. – United States International Trade Commission. Represented Respondent CSR in this investigation brought by Freescale involving bus termination circuitry in semiconductor devices. Obtained an Initial Determination (affirmed by the Commission) terminating the Investigation
• Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. CSR (formerly Zoran Corp.), et al. – United States International Trade Commission. Represented Respondent CSR in this investigation brought by Freescale involving bus termination circuitry in semiconductor devices. Obtained a Final Determination of no violation based upon findings of non-infringement, invalidity and no domestic industry
• Represented a multinational technology client in a five patent United States International Trade Commission investigation concerning mobile device power management and touchscreen technologies. Obtained an Initial Determination by the ALJ, and a Final Determination from the Commission, finding no violation as to all patents based upon findings of non-infringement and no domestic industry
• NetApp v. Sun Microsystems and Sun Microsystems v. NetApp – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Represented Sun in three District Court patent infringement actions between Sun and NetApp. The parties litigated 39 patents, most of which were directed to storage technology
• Hynix Semiconductor v. Toshiba Corporation – United States International Trade Commission. Represented the respondent, Toshiba, in an ITC action where the patents concerned NAND flash memory products. In his initial determination, the ALJ found Toshiba did not violate section 337, Toshiba did not infringe either of the patents-in-suit, one of the patents was invalid, both patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and Hynix failed to prove that it has a domestic industry in either of the patents
• Samsung Electronics v. Quanta Computer, et al. – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Represented the plaintiff, Samsung, in a case where the patent concerned the implementation of hotkey functionality in notebook computers. Obtained US$9 million jury verdict
• Zoran Corporation v. MediaTek, Inc. et al. – United States International Trade Commission. Represented complainants Zoran and Oak Technology in asserting three patents related to optical disk controller chips and DVD players. Obtained Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order against MediaTek and ten of its customers as to one patent. Case subsequently settled on terms extremely favorable to Zoran and Oak
• MediaTek, Inc. v. Zoran Corporation – United States International Trade Commission. Defended respondents Zoran and Oak against allegations of infringing three patents relating to optical disk controller chips. Obtained Initial Determination of non-infringement and invalidity. Case subsequently settled on terms extremely favorable to Zoran and Oak

Chambers USA

• Band 3, Nationwide International Trade: Intellectual Property, Section 337, (2013, 2023 – 2025)
• Band 4, California Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation, (2021 – 2025)
• Band 2, Nationwide International Trade: Intellectual Property, Section 337, (2014 – 2021)
  Chambers USA describes Mark as, "experienced in representing high-profile technology companies in patent litigation at both the US district courts and the ITC." Clients praise Mark as, "a very strong legal partner with a firm grasp on the law, facts and commercial implications."

Chambers Global

• Band 2, USA International Trade: Intellectual Property, Section 337, (2015 – 2022) 
• Band 3, USA International Trade: Intellectual Property, Section 337, (2014, 2023 – 2025) 

The Legal 500 United States

• Recommended, Patents Litigation: Full Coverage, (2013 – 2016, 2018 – 2022, 2024 – 2025) 
• Leading Partner, Patents: Litigation (International Trade Commission), (2019 – 2021, 2023 – 2025) 
• Recommended, Trademarks: Non-Contentious (including Prosecution, Portfolio Management and Licensing), (2022)
• Recommended, Trademarks: Litigation, (2022)
• Recommended, Patents: Litigation (International Trade Commission), (2012 – 2018, 2022) 

Additional Recognitions

• Patent Star, IP STARS, (2025)
• Named by IAM Patent 1000: The World's Leading Patent Professionals, (2019)
• Named by the Daily Journal as a Leading Intellectual Property Lawyer in California, (2018)
• Selected as a Leading Lawyer in the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers of America, (2018)
• Named an "Intellectual Property Trailblazer" by National Law Journal, (2018)
• Named among IAM Patent 1000's list of The World's Leading Patent Practitioners, (2017)
• Named to the Daily Journal's Top 75 California IP Litigators, (2015)
• Selected as a "Top Rated Lawyer in Intellectual Property" by American Lawyer Media and Martindale-Hubbell, (2013)
• Featured along with his AKD Partners partners on the cover of The Lawyers, a widely read Japanese legal publication, with the cover headline, "AKD Partners, the largest law firm in the world with over 4,000 lawyers, has launched IPT practice in Japan"
• Named to the National Law Journal's Defense Hot List, identifying Mark's work in the Zoran/Media Tek ITC litigation as one of the firm's noteworthy successes, (2006)