Partner
Lionel Lavenue is a battle-tested patent trial lawyer who relentlessly defends and enforces intellectual property (IP) in consequential disputes facing technology-driven businesses. He has served as lead or first chair counsel in more than 235 patent cases, including 24 bench and jury trials, and in nearly a dozen cases involving trade secrets. Lionel has a reputation for launching multifront defense campaigns for innovative companies targeted by non-practicing entities (NPEs). These efforts have resulted in the dismissal of multiple high-value patent claims, saving clients millions in potential damages. Lionel has led the filing of over 200 inter partes review (IPR) petitions, covered business method (CBM) petitions, and post-grant reviews (PGRs), applying maximum pressure on opposing patents. He has extensive experience in major patent venues, including the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC), as well as with arbitration proceedings. His trial-hardened litigation acumen is reinforced by deep patent portfolio and prosecution work, allowing Lionel to align courtroom strategy with long-term enforcement, licensing, and competitive positioning objectives for clients.
Lionel has argued dozens of Markman hearings. He has directed the discovery for numerous complex cases and disputes, and he has taken or defended over 300 depositions. He also has briefed and argued numerous patent/IP appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
Lionel’s extensive experience with innovation capture and patent/IP protection includes the preparation of over 2,750 patent applications. He has organized and managed numerous large domestic and foreign patent portfolios. His prosecution experience covers an array of technologies, including those related to the financial services, electrical, aerospace, and automotive industries. Lionel works directly with leading innovators in the artificial intelligence (AI) sector, alongside related fields such as automotive technologies and robotics. This includes counseling on patent applications, opinions, and litigation for AI-related inventions, where Lionel leverages his extensive background in software and computer-implemented technologies, which often overlap with AI systems (e.g., machine learning (ML) algorithms, data processing, and automated decision-making).
Lionel’s practice includes litigation, patent applications, and opinion work related to business methods, computers, software, and electrical and mechanical devices (including medical devices, especially medical device software applications). He has also directed numerous ex parte (EPR) and inter partes patent reexamination proceedings, including over 125 “offensive and defensive EPR reexaminations” used during litigations. In a recent campaign, he secured institution of all 10 of 10 EPR requests filed for a client, a perfect record that led to a stay of the parallel district court litigation. He is the lead author of Finnegan’s EPR Academy series, a multi-part practitioner guide covering the history and statutory framework of EPRs, the process from request through certificate and appeal, comparisons with IPR, PGR, and reissue, and emerging U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) procedure. As one of the first to challenge a patent via the America Invents Act (AIA) IPR procedure, he has led the filing of over 200 IPR petitions and CBM petitions before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO.
Lionel is lead and first-chair counsel in complex trade secret disputes spanning federal and state courts, the ITC, and parallel foreign forums. He has handled nearly a dozen trade secret matters involving software, automotive, and other advanced technologies. As lead counsel for BMW, he secured termination of the ITC investigation Certain In-Vehicle Infotainment Systems based on a Munich forum-selection clause in the parties’ confidentiality agreements, reportedly the first time a contested Section 337 trade secret case was dismissed on that ground. In the same campaign, he obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California enforcing that clause and requiring Zync to halt the ITC case; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then denied Zync’s emergency motion to stay the injunction. As lead of the Finnegan team, working with attorneys in the firm’s Munich office, he also helped put the merits before the contractually chosen forum through a declaratory-judgment action in the Regional Court of Munich I. Those results—building on an earlier California state-court dismissal of related claims on the same contractual provision—make the matter a leading example of multi-forum trade secret defense under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), state misappropriation law, and ITC Section 337.
Lionel has particular insight into patent disputes involving government contracts, including patent infringement claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, with extensive experience with numerous cases before the COFC. He holds Public Trust clearance, and previously held Top Secret and Code Word clearances.
Lionel routinely lectures to bar associations and aviation groups on patent law issues related to aircraft, rotorcraft, soaring, skydiving, and lighter-than-air technologies. He is an active and current airplane and helicopter pilot (and occasional glider and balloon pilot), and he counsels many aviation and aerospace companies on IP issues. Lionel also has extensive experience with drone, UAV, and UAS technologies. As a Fulbright Scholar, Lionel participated in a visiting scholar program at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, focusing on the study of foreign and international patent, copyright, and competition law. He has been recognized by Managing Intellectual Property (MIP) as a “Patent Star” on both the national and regional (Virginia) levels as well as by Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) for his practice in the DC region.
Lionel and his wife are alpine mountaineers, skydivers, and adventurers. Of the Seven Summits (the highest peaks of the seven continents), they have summited six (Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa in 1999; Mt. Elbrus in Russia in 2002; Mt. Aconcagua in South America in 2002; Mt. McKinley in North America and Mt. Vinson in Antarctica in 2004; and Mt. Kosciuszko in Oceania in 2007) and plans to finish the seventh of the Seven Summits, with Mt. Everest scheduled for 2028/2029. Lionel is an experienced skydiver (with over 1750 relative-work formation skydives) and holds numerous skydiving world records. He and his wife are scheduled on an early commercial space flight, with World View, in 2027/2028.
Lionel works with leading innovators across technology markets including those in the automotive, robotics, and AI spaces. Lionel has extensive experience with both front end and back end features of mobile apps, including applications of object-oriented design, HTML5 architecture, the Angular, Apache Kafka, and MICRON frameworks, and BIAN. He has represented Boeing in patent matters relating to aircraft software products; represented Bosch both in patent enforcement and in the defense of multiple patent infringement lawsuits related to various electronic and mechanical technologies; defended various LG entities in multiple patent infringement lawsuits, primarily in the Eastern District of Texas, involving electronic, mechanical, and telecommunication technologies; and defended Sony in multiple patent infringement lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas, Northern District of California, and Central District of California, involving electronic, software, and mechanical technologies, as well as in arbitration issues before the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA). He has also represented the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and governmental entities in protecting, defending, and enforcing mechanical, electronic, and software innovations.
18-2003, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, Prost, Chen
6:11-cv-00278, E.D. Tex., Judges Davis, Love
1:11-cv-00930, -00931, D. Del., Judge Sleet
2:13-cv-11407, -11410, E.D. Mich., Judges Duggan, Roberts, Grand, Randon
1:20-cv-01907, N.D. Ga., Judge Grimberg
IPR2017-01938, -01939, -01940, 01941, PTAB, Judges Margolies, Easthom, Zado
2:12-cv-00042, E.D. Tex., Judges Folsom, Gilstrap, Schneider, Craven
3:13-cv-01296, D. Or., Judges Hernandez, Acosta
4:08-cv-04567, N.D. Cal., Judges Wilken, Laporte, Larson
337-TA-666, ITC, Judge Gildea
Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.
After an Eastern District of Texas jury found willful infringement and the court entered a judgment of at least $110 million ($75 million jury award, plus $25 million enhancement and prejudgment interest), he argued, as lead appellate counsel, the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed under 35 U.S.C. § 101, held the asserted claims patent-ineligible, and vacated the entire judgment. The Federal Circuit also awarded costs to TCL; on remand, the Eastern District of Texas awarded TCL $2.35 million in costs.
2:15-cv-00011, E.D. Tex., Judge Nowak
18-2003, Fed. Cir., Judges Chen, Newman, Prost
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Onesta IP, LLC
Functioned as lead counsel for BMW. After a non-practicing entity (NPE) asserted two U.S. patents in Munich, Finnegan filed a declaratory-judgment action in the Western District of Texas and obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) as well as an anti-suit injunction barring foreign enforcement of those U.S. patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Onesta’s appeal, awarded costs to BMW as prevailing party, and left the injunction intact. The case resolved with a worldwide, irrevocable covenant not to sue, covering BMW, affiliates, customers, and the accused products.
6:25-cv-00581, W.D. Tex., Judge Albright
26-1338, Fed. Cir., Judges Chen, Lourie, Stark
Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG et al.
Lead counsel for BMW in a 13-year non practicing entity (NPE) campaign against 50+ automakers over GPS/navigation patents. Finnegan coordinated district court, Section 337 ITC, and six U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reexaminations that reduced the portfolio to two surviving claims. The Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment of non-infringement, ending the campaign with no infringement finding against BMW.
1:11-cv-00931, D. Del., Judge Sleet
2:13-cv-11410, E.D. Mich., Judges Duggan, Goldsmith, Roberts
337-TA-814, ITC, Judge Pender
HID Global Corporation v. Idemia Identity & Security USA LLC
Lead counsel for petitioner HID Global in a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) hearing where four inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenged patents on laser-etched security features in identification cards. In final written decisions, the PTAB held the challenged claims unpatentable and denied the patent owner’s motion to amend.
IPR2017-01938, -01939, -01940, -01941, PTAB, Judges Easthom, Margolies, Zado
Carrum Technologies, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al.
Obtained complete victory against Carrum on appeal of the District of Delaware’s claim construction to the Federal Circuit following Carrum’s stipulation of non-infringement under the claim construction, thereby exonerating BMW’s ACC system, first sold in 2000, against Carrum’s 2004 patents. Invalidated several asserted claims through post-grant efforts before the U.S. Patent Office, including IPRs and EPRs, and pursued claims through proceedings before the Eastern District of Virginia to vindicate BMW’s patent challenges.
1:18-cv-01645, D. Del., Judge Andrews
21-1435, 24-1480, Fed. Cir., Judges Clevenger, Cunningham, Lourie, Moore, Prost, Taranto
IPR2019-00902, -00903, -00904, -00905, -00927, 00928, PTAB, Judges Browne, Scanlon, Tornquist
90/019,010, CRU
Patent drafting and prosecution for CentralSquare’s AI technologies
Finnegan is proud to partner with CentralSquare in developing and protecting its mission-critical software and technology solutions for public sector agencies, including those serving public safety and public administration. Our team has led the drafting and prosecution of a broad portfolio of artificial intelligence (AI)-related patent applications, advancing CentralSquare’s innovations across emergency services and municipal operations. These AI technologies accelerate emergency response, streamline workflows, and strengthen data-driven decision-making for agencies and the communities they serve.
Working closely with CentralSquare’s inventors and in-house counsel, we ensure every application captures the technical depth of the invention while aligning with CentralSquare’s strategic goals. We prioritize clarity, enforceability, and foresight—refining claims, anticipating examiner challenges, and crafting robust Office Action responses. By anticipating industry trends in AI and preparing forward-looking applications, Finnegan positions CentralSquare’s innovations not only to be protected, but to drive lasting impact in public safety and beyond.
IP Updates
Too Concrete to Fail: Ceiva’s Guidance on the Use of Sufficiently Concrete Structures to Overcome Section 101 Rejections Too Concrete to Fail: Ceiva’s Guidance on the Use of Sufficiently Concrete Structures to Overcome Section 101 Rejections
July 28, 2026
Articles
EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue
July 1, 2026
IP Updates
EPR Academy: ALERT – USPTO Introduces New EPR Pre-order Procedure for Determination in Ex Parte Reexaminations EPR Academy: ALERT – USPTO Introduces New EPR Pre-order Procedure for Determination in Ex Parte Reexaminations
April 3, 2026
Articles
Preempting Surprise Injunctions in Germany and the UPC: Strategic Use of the Schutzschrift in Global Patent Litigation Preempting Surprise Injunctions in Germany and the UPC: Strategic Use of the Schutzschrift in Global Patent Litigation
March 27, 2026
Articles
Patent Ruling Shows Quiet Power of State-Law Bad-Faith Statutes Patent Ruling Shows Quiet Power of State-Law Bad-Faith Statutes
February 20, 2026
Bloomberg LawArticles
EPR Academy, Part 3 of 6: The EPR Appeals Process EPR Academy, Part 3 of 6: The EPR Appeals Process
February 19, 2026
Conference
4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM 4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM
October 29, 2026
Munich
“On the contentious side, the firm fields a formidable bench led by standout trial lawyer Lionel Lavenue, who is regularly entrusted with high-stakes, technically complex disputes and is known for his commanding courtroom presence and strategic leadership of large trial teams.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
“Lionel Lavenue is a seasoned first-chair trial lawyer with an exceptional track record in complex patent disputes, including leading BMW’s successful defence against multiple patent assertion entities through coordinated district court and PTAB strategies.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
"Lionel Lavenue is a terrific patent litigator. He earnestly provides thoughtful advice and always puts his clients’ needs first. I have never been wanting for a response or document when working with Lionel. I very much appreciate his candour and creative solutions to problems. Lionel is truly one of a kind."
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
“Lionel is always focused on winning a case. He manages the most complex litigation easily and is excellent at working under pressure. Lionel’s presence is comforting for the client and frightening for the adversary. In short, he enjoys fighting and winning.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
"Lionel Lavenue is an extremely smart and experienced lead partner. A great patent attorney with impressive technical competences. Our outside impression is that he leads his case teams extremely well, and his staff enjoy working with him. We certainly do."
The Legal 500 U.S.
“James Barney, Lionel Lavenue and Doris Johnson Hines have all engaged in Section 337 investigations recently and are three of the best all-round patent litigators on deck.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
“On the contentious side, the firm fields a formidable bench led by standout trial lawyer Lionel Lavenue, who is regularly entrusted with high-stakes, technically complex disputes and is known for his commanding courtroom presence and strategic leadership of large trial teams.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
“Lionel Lavenue is a seasoned first-chair trial lawyer with an exceptional track record in complex patent disputes, including leading BMW’s successful defence against multiple patent assertion entities through coordinated district court and PTAB strategies.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
"Lionel Lavenue is a terrific patent litigator. He earnestly provides thoughtful advice and always puts his clients’ needs first. I have never been wanting for a response or document when working with Lionel. I very much appreciate his candour and creative solutions to problems. Lionel is truly one of a kind."
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
“Lionel is always focused on winning a case. He manages the most complex litigation easily and is excellent at working under pressure. Lionel’s presence is comforting for the client and frightening for the adversary. In short, he enjoys fighting and winning.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
"Lionel Lavenue is an extremely smart and experienced lead partner. A great patent attorney with impressive technical competences. Our outside impression is that he leads his case teams extremely well, and his staff enjoy working with him. We certainly do."
The Legal 500 U.S.
“James Barney, Lionel Lavenue and Doris Johnson Hines have all engaged in Section 337 investigations recently and are three of the best all-round patent litigators on deck.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
Media Mention
Finnegan Named a Finalist in Three Categories in Law.com’s D.C. Legal Awards Finnegan Named a Finalist in Three Categories in Law.com’s D.C. Legal Awards
August 24, 2026
Law.comCommentary
Early Test of USPTO's Ex Parte Preorder Filing Leads to Re-Exam Denial Early Test of USPTO's Ex Parte Preorder Filing Leads to Re-Exam Denial
August 21, 2026
MLexPress Release
USPTO Denies Super Lighting Reexamination Request Following PVTECH Pre-Order Submission Under New USPTO Procedure USPTO Denies Super Lighting Reexamination Request Following PVTECH Pre-Order Submission Under New USPTO Procedure
August 19, 2026
Commentary
BMW Counsel: How a Supplier Clause Prevented U.S. Trade Secret Litigation BMW Counsel: How a Supplier Clause Prevented U.S. Trade Secret Litigation
August 3, 2026
World Intellectual Property ReviewCommentary
BMW Uses Forum-Selection Clause to Shut Down ITC Trade Secret Investigation BMW Uses Forum-Selection Clause to Shut Down ITC Trade Secret Investigation
July 31, 2026
Intellectual Asset Management (IAM)Commentary
A Win in Every Forum: Judge Terminates Zync's Case Against BMW A Win in Every Forum: Judge Terminates Zync's Case Against BMW
July 30, 2026
Law.comDue to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.