• Share
  • Email
  • Print

L. Scott Oliver

Fax +1.650.798.6701

Scott Oliver focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and strategic intellectual property counseling. He has extensive experience in the litigation and trial of patent, copyright, trade secret and complex technology-related cases in state and federal courts, and before the International Trade Commission.

He has more than a decade of experience defending Meru Networks, Brocade Communications and Aruba Networks against such plaintiffs as Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent, EON, Linex, ReefEdge, Extricom, Harris, etc. in District Courts and the ITC. He has deep experience with wireless technology, standards adoption, SEP defenses, signal impairments, MIMO, mesh networking, and wireless chipset design, and he consults for handset manufacturers and patent pools on the licensing of 802.11, 3G and LTE patents. Notably, he was involved in both the Napster and MP3.com cases and has significant experience with patents related to the digital distribution of content.

Oliver also has significant experience in developing and managing major anti-piracy programs for clients, in intellectual property licensing issues, with standards-setting organizations, and in advising clients on how to strategically grow and manage their intellectual property portfolios.

Professional Background

Prior to joining K&L Gates, Mr. Oliver was a partner at another global law firm in Palo Alto.


  • Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services from The Board of Governors of the State Bar of California
  • Named a 2013 “California Future Star” by Benchmark Litigation

Professional/Civic Activities

  • Outgoing chair of the American Intellectual Property Law Association's ITC Committee

Speaking Engagements

  • AIPLA Electronic and Computer Law Committee, “Litigation Strategy Post-Alice,” June 2016
  • "Patent Damages – Keeping Up with the Changing Rules,” PLI 8th and 9th Annual Patent Law Institute, January 2014 and February 2014; January 2015 and February 2015.
  • “The Business of Trade Secrets,” October 2013.
  • “Trade Secret Management & Monetization Symposium,” Enforcement Case Studies, September 2013.
  • “What Non-U.S. Practitioners Need to Know About the AIA,” American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), March 2013.
  • “Legal Avenues for Protecting the Brand,” AIPLA Spring Meeting, May 2012.
  • “Business and Legal Implications of The Supreme Court's Decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics,” June 2008.
  • “How In-House Counsel Decides to Use Section 337,” May 2007.
International Trade Commission
  • Certain Static Random Access Memories, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-792). Represented Cypress Semiconductor in patent litigation against competitor and importer customers of competitor.
  • Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-775). Represented Meru Networks in patent litigation brought by inventor of spread-spectrum technology. Case dismissed with prejudice by complainant.
  • Certain HSP Modems, Software and Hardware Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-439). Represented modem manufacturer defending against a cluster of modem-related patents. Case settled on favorable terms following Initial Determination.

District Courts
  • Magma Design Automation v. Synopsys (District of Delaware). Represented Magma in patent and trade secret litigation. Case settled on favorable terms.
  • ESS Technology v. MediaTek (Northern District of California). Represented ESS Technology against competitor that infringed client’s copyrighted software. Case settled with payment of $90 million to client after hearing on preliminary injunction—highest ever-reported copyright settlement.
  • AMD v. Hyundai (Santa Clara Superior Court). Represented Hyundai in trade secret suit over flash memory technology. Case settled before trial.
  • Ultratech v. Stepper Technology Ltd (Scotland).  Represented stepper manufacturer against refurbisher and reseller globally.  Case ongoing.
  • Linex v. Aruba Meru, Ruckus et al (Northern District of California).  Represented 802.11 access point manufacturers accused of using patent-infringing OFDM and MiMo technology.  Won case for defendants on summary judgment, and awarded our attorneys’ fees by the court.
  • Joao v. Time Warner Cable (District of Delaware).  Represented Time Warner Cable, accused of infringing home security and video recording patents.  Case ongoing.
  • MD Security Solutions v. Bright House Networks (Middle District of Florida).  Represented Bright House Networks, accused of infringing security and video patents.  Case ongoing.
  • Harris v. Ruckus (Middle District of Florida).  Represented access point manufacturer accused of infringing MiMo and mesh networking patents.  Case ongoing.
  • Accenture v. Guidewire (District of Delaware). Represented Accenture in patent litigation against competitor in insurance software. Case settled on favorable terms.
  • EON v. Meru Networks (Northern District of California). Represented Meru Networks in patent litigation brought by patentee claiming VoIP infringes patent. Case ongoing.
  • Fujitsu v. Netgear (Western District of Wisconsin). Represented Fujitsu and Philips in patent litigation against 802.11 device manufacturer. Case settled after Federal Circuit ruling.
  • Townshend v. Broadcom; Townshend v. ESS Technology (Northern District of California). Represented Broadcom and ESS Technology against patentee on high-speed modem technology. Both cases settled on favorable terms following claim construction ruling.