Erik R. Puknys
Partner
More
vCard
  • Stanford Research Park
  • 3300 Hillview Avenue, 2nd Floor
  • Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203

Erik R. Puknys

Partner

  • Stanford Research Park
  • 3300 Hillview Avenue, 2nd Floor
  • Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
Erik Puknys' career in intellectual property began more than 25 years ago, when he joined the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office as a patent examiner.

Erik, currently serving his second term as the Palo Alto office managing partner, started his legal career at Finnegan's Washington, D.C. office in 1994, and moved to California in 1997 to help open an office in Silicon Valley. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in district courts around the United States, in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and in the U.S. Supreme Court. He has worked for startups and Fortune 100 companies in a wide variety of technical fields, including software, telecommunications, computer hardware, semiconductors, medical diagnostics, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.

Erik is consistently recognized for his work as a leading patent litigator. He has been recognized by The Legal 500 U.S. for patent litigation, and as a leading patent litigator in California by Intellectual Asset Management. He was selected as one of the 75 Leading Intellectual Property Litigators in California by the Daily Journal. Erik was named in The 2015 BTI Client Service All-Stars for "superior client service."

Firm leadership roles over the years include serving as leader of the firm's appellate section; managing partner of the firm's Palo Alto office; as a member of the firm's management and compensation committees; and as partner-in-charge of recruiting in the firm's Palo Alto office, of which Erik is a founding member.

In his pro bono practice, Erik represented an honorably discharged, disabled veteran, in an appeal from a denial of benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He has been recognized on the Capital Pro Bono High Honor Roll.

Experience

Nuance Communications Inc,. v. Abbyy USA Software House Inc.
Represented ABBYY and Lexmark in a jury trial for a patent and trade dress case involving  optical character recognition technology, obtaining complete defense jury verdict on all issues, and client not liable for $260 million in alleged damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.

3:08-cv-02912, N.D. Cal., Judge White

Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.
Lead counsel for Kinetic Concepts (KCI) on appeal. Argued the appeal from a district court judgment dismissing the case for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment and dismissed the case.

09-1085, Fed. Cir., Judges Michel, Newman, Prost

i4i v Microsoft Corp.
Obtained a unanimous decision from the Federal Circuit affirming a district court judgment of willful infringement and a damages award of approximately $290 million (the second largest patent damages award ever affirmed on appeal), and the entry of a permanent injunction against Microsoft’s flagship Word software. The Federal Circuit also upheld the validity of the patent. The Supreme Court affirmed on all counts.

10-290, S. Ct., Judges Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor, Thomas
09-1504, Fed. Cir., Judges Moore, Prost, Schall

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew 
Appeared at trial and argued numerous motions, including JMOL, jury charge, and evidentiary motions. Jury returned verdict for client KCI. Successfully defended jury verdict of validity on appeal.

11-1105, Fed. Cir., Judges Bryson, Dyk, O'Malley
5:08-cv-00102, W.D. Tex., Judges Furgeson, Rodriguez

SanDisk v. Memorex Prods., Inc.
Represented SanDisk in appeal involving flash memory patents. Obtained reversal of district court's non-infringement finding.

04-1422, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Gajarsa, Rader

Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.
Obtained reversal of a more than $45 million dollar judgment against client Ericsson.

03-1625, -1626, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Clevenger, Gajarsa

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC
Successfully convinced the Federal Circuit to vacate and remand adverse PTAB decisions, with the Federal Circuit finding the patent owner was not entitled to any presumption that the patented invention (related to bicycle chainring technology) was responsible for the alleged secondary considerations. On remand, the PTAB ruled in favor of client FOX Factory, finding all of SRAM’s claims unpatentable.

18-2024, -2025, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Wallach, Hughes
IPR2017-00118, -00472, PTAB, Judges Kim, Ippolito, Cherry

Two-Way Radio Equipment and Systems, Related Software, and Components Thereof
Represented respondents in investigation involving two-way radios and related audio features, including obtaining favorable decision on new designs.

337-TA-1053, ITC, Judge McNamara

Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
Lead counsel representing Cepheid in this declaratory judgment challenging the validity and enforceability of certain patents belonging to Roche Molecular Systems.

3:12-cv-04411, N.D. Cal., Judge Chen

Gerber Scientific International, Inc. v. Roland DG Corp.

Represented Roland DG of Japan in patent infringement lawsuit over large-format printers used for making indoor/outdoor banners, displays, and signs and vehicle graphics. The case was dismissed after the parties reached a mutually agreeable settlement shortly before case was in ready for trial. 

3:06-cv-02024, D. Conn., Judges Covello, Martinez

Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid
Represented Cepheid in lawsuit filed by Roche Molecular Systems alleging infringement of a patent directed to diagnostic testing.

3:14-cv-03228, N.D. Cal., Judge Laporte

Nuance Communications Inc,. v. Abbyy USA Software House Inc.
Represented ABBYY and Lexmark in a jury trial for a patent and trade dress case involving  optical character recognition technology, obtaining complete defense jury verdict on all issues, and client not liable for $260 million in alleged damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.

3:08-cv-02912, N.D. Cal., Judge White

Industrial Technology Research Institute v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. 
Lead counsel in an appeal from an adverse decision in an interference concerning DNA sequencing technologies.

15-1200, Fed. Cir., Judges Lourie, Prost, Wallach

Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc.
Member of trial team that secured successful jury verdict for client, Asetek, in a case against a competitor selling infringing computer cooling systems. Jury awarded damages at 14.5% royalty rate and rejected all of CMI USA’s invalidity defenses. Judge imposed enhanced damages for post-trial willful infringement.

3:13-cv-00457, N.D. Cal., Judges Chen, Corley, Tigar

ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.
Member of appellate team seeking to reverse the district court's decision to vacate a $170 million jury infringement verdict.

14-1612, -1655, Fed. Cir., Judges Bryson, Chen, Lourie

Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.
Represented respondent in a case regarding standards for awarding attorneys’ fees; previously succeeded in convincing the district court to lift all sanctions against counsel and obtained a reversal of four of the five grounds on which the district court found the case exceptional at the Federal Circuit.

12-1163, S. Ct., Judges Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor, Thomas
11-1219, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Mayer, Newman
4:03-cv-01384, N.D. Tex., Judges Lancaster, Means

Digital Imaging Systems, Inc. v. ABBYY USA Software House, Inc. 
Lead counsel defending software manufacturer ABBYY against allegation of infringement brought by plaintiff, Digital Imaging Systems.

3:07-cv-01274, N.D. Tex., Judges Godbey, O'Connor

Brooks Automation, Inc. v. Telemark, Inc.
Represented Brooks Automation in asserting patents related to cryogenic refrigeration and successfully negotiating an early conclusion to the litigation that resulted in a license.

3:11-cv-05776, S.D. Cal., Judges Ryu, Seeborg

James L. Greene v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Represented Mr. James Greene, an honorably discharged, disabled veteran, in an appeal from a denial of benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans affairs.

11-7084, Fed. Cir., Judges Linn, Dyk, Reyna

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. S. Vasanthkumar
A Juniper former employee downloaded numerous sensitive files from Juniper in the days and hours leading up to his resignation. On Juniper’s behalf, Finnegan sued for trade secret misappropriation and related causes of action.

2010-1-CV-178564, Sup. Ct. of Cal., Santa Clara County, Judge Kirwan

Uniloc USA v. Microsoft Corp.
Obtained a reversal of a district court’s grant of JMOL for noninfringement, thereby reinstating the jury verdict finding that Microsoft infringed Uniloc’s patent. The Federal Circuit also affirmed that Microsoft failed to prove Uniloc’s patent invalid.

10-1035, -1055, -1326, Fed. Cir., Judges Linn, Moore, Rader

Goodman v. Winbond Electronics Corp.
Lead counsel for Winbond in this patent infringement case concerning semiconductor memory devices.

5:10-cv-03738, N.D. Cal., Judge Lloyd

Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors
Represented Elpida and 18 other respondents in this ITC investigation, which involved four Infineon semiconductor processing patents and some of Elpida's most important and successful products.

337-TA-707, ITC, Judge Essex

Elpida Memory, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG
Represented Elpida in these two offensive actions against Infineon, which were filed after Infineon sued Elpida in the ITC.

1:10-cv-00327; 2:10-cv-00152, E.D. Va., Judges Lee, Jones; Friedman, Stillman

Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.
Lead counsel for Kinetic Concepts (KCI) on appeal. Argued the appeal from a district court judgment dismissing the case for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment and dismissed the case.

09-1085, Fed. Cir., Judges Michel, Newman, Prost

Power Integrations, Inc. v. BCD Semiconductor Corp.
Represented the defendant by successfully arguing against preliminary-injunction motion. After the court denied the PI (on the basis that there was a substantial question of patent invalidity) the case settled without our client paying any damages.

1:07-cv-0063, D. Del., Judges Farnan, Stark

Freedom Wireless v. Boston Communications Group, Inc. 
Represented lead defendant, Boston Communications, in appealing a judgment that resulted in damages of more than $125 million and an injunction that would have eliminated the majority of Boston Communications' revenue.

06-1020, -1078, -1079, -1098, -1099, -1194, -1195, Fed. Cir.

MOSAID v. Infineon
Represented MOSAID in an appeal from an adverse judgment finding that none of the patents MOSAID asserted against Infineon were infringed.

06-1115, Fed. Cir.

Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Home Diagnostics Inc.
Defended Home Diagnostics, a manufacturer of blood testing equipment, against infringement allegations by competitor. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement of one patent and a holding of unenforceability of the other patent following a bench trial.

1:04-cv-00358, S.D. Ind., Judges McKinney, Shields

Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
Represented Otsuka Pharmaceuticals in a patent infringement suit concerning cell-based assay methods and kits. Housey requested that judgment be entered against it after the district court issued a Markman ruling favorable to the defendants. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the judgment.

1:01-cv-00401, D. Del., Judge Robinson

Bell Communications v. Fore Systems Inc.
Counsel for Bellcore in a patent infringement action involving patents directed to communications technology, including ATM, SONET, and IEEE 802 networking.

1:98-cv-00586, D. Del., Judge Farnan

Zircon Corp. v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc. 
Lead counsel for Ryobi in a patent infringement suit concerning electronic beam-finders used in construction.

3:03-cv-04446, N.D. Cal., Judge Illston

Hamilton v. Placeware, Inc. 
Represented Placeware in a patent infringement suit concerning remote conferencing software.

1:02-cv-02438, D. Md., Judge Garbis

Alcon Corp. v. LaserSight, Inc. 
Represented LaserSight in a patent infringement suit concerning corrective laser eye surgery.

2:03-cv-00678, E.D. Va., Judges Doumar, Miller

Insight Development Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard

Represented a major computer and computer-peripheral manufacturer accused of stealing trade secrets relating to internet and printer technologies by a former developer. The plaintiff was asking for more than $1,500,000,000 in damages. Obtained a rare summary judgment of independent development from the district court, which was affirmed on appeal.

4:98-cv-03349, N.D. Cal., Judge Wilken
01-1459, -1548, Fed. Cir., Judges Michel, Plager, Rader

Aesculap AG v. Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc.
Counsel for Lorenz in a patent infringement suit concerning skull fixation devices.

3:00-cv-02394, N.D. Cal., Judges Jenkins, Spero
3:01-cv-00778, M.D. Fla., Judge Melton

Finnegan provides appellate relief for manufacturer of oil & gas equipment manufacturer hit with $70 million district court judgment

Handled an appeal for an oil-refining equipment manufacturer accused by a rival of misappropriating trade secrets. The district court had found that the manufacturer had hired away the rival’s employees and encouraged them to use their former employer’s trade secrets to design refinery equipment. The district court awarded nearly $70,000,000 in damages. After a one-sided oral argument in which all three judges on the panel repeatedly criticized the district court’s reasoning, the case settled for a tiny fraction of the original award.

Nuance Communications Inc,. v. Abbyy USA Software House Inc.

Lead counsel representing software manufacturer ABBYY, a Russian company (with a Silicon Valley subsidiary) that makes software for optical character recognition technology, and Lexmark International, a leading manufacturer of printers and scanners. The plaintiff, Nuance Communications, asserted eight patents against several different product lines, claiming damages in excess of $260 million. A jury found for ABBYY and Lexmark on all issues and the district court entered final judgment against Nuance. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

3:08-cv-02912, N.D. Cal., Judge White

Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.

Lead counsel for Kinetic Concepts (KCI) on appeal. Argued the appeal from a district court judgment dismissing the case for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment and dismissed the case.  

09-1085, Fed. Cir., Judges Michel, Newman, Prost

i4i v Microsoft Corp.

Member of the team that obtained a unanimous decision from the Federal Circuit affirming a district court judgment of willful infringement and a damages award of approximately $290 million (the second largest patent damages award ever affirmed on appeal), and the entry of a permanent injunction against Microsoft's flagship Word software. The Federal Circuit also upheld the validity of the patent.

10-290, S. Ct., Judges Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor, Thomas
09-1504, Fed. Cir., Judges Moore, Prost, Schall

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew 

Appeared at trial and argued numerous motions, including JMOL, jury charge, and evidentiary motions. Jury returned verdict for client KCI. Successfully defended jury verdict of validity on appeal.

11-1105, Fed. Cir., Judges Bryson, Dyk, O'Malley
5:08-cv-00102, W.D. Tex., Judges Furgeson, Rodriguez

SanDisk v. Memorex Prods., Inc.

Represented SanDisk in appeal involving flash memory patents. Obtained reversal of district court's non-infringement finding.

04-1422, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Gajarsa, Rader

Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.

Obtained reversal of a more than $45 million dollar judgment against client Ericsson.

03-1625, -1626, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Clevenger, Gajarsa

More

Insights

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – June 2026 Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – June 2026

June 8, 2026

Conference

WIPR Trade Secrets West WIPR Trade Secrets West

May 28, 2026

San Jose

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay

May 14, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case

May 14, 2026

Conference

LESI Annual Conference 2026 LESI Annual Conference 2026

April 26-29, 2026

Dublin

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patents Because Inventorship Could Not Be Corrected Without Giving All Inventors Notice and an Opportunity to Be Heard Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patents Because Inventorship Could Not Be Corrected Without Giving All Inventors Notice and an Opportunity to Be Heard

April 22, 2026

More

Professional Recognition

"Puknys is a skilled litigator who operates flawlessly on both sides of the ‘v’."

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Maintaining a California presence for eminent boutique Finnegan, Erik Puknys has practised in Silicon Valley for over two decades. A former USPTO examiner and polished litigator, he develops lasting protection for clients.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“One of its chief figures on the West Coast is Palo Alto-based Erik Puknys, a robust litigator who also leads the firm’s appellate division – which many consider to be the best in intellectual property in the country. With so much post-grant appeals activity going on right now, he and his group are in hot demand.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“‘Erik Puknys is a really good guy,’ says a client. ‘He has phenomenal knowledge of case law; he’s very sharp on strategy. [He has] really good client skills [and is a] great guy.’”

Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars

“‘Erik Puknys is genuinely interested in your technology and in getting the right patent for your business. He really takes the time to understand what you are doing and then works his magic. Most would fail to get the intellectual property he gets granted and he is great at coming up with creative, effective arguments when you do get a claim rejected.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Erik Puknys flies the flag of celebrated boutique Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner in California. He leads the firm’s appellate practice, which is one of the best in the country.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Puknys leads the firm’s appellate practice, which is one of the best in the business.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

"Puknys is a skilled litigator who operates flawlessly on both sides of the ‘v’."

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Maintaining a California presence for eminent boutique Finnegan, Erik Puknys has practised in Silicon Valley for over two decades. A former USPTO examiner and polished litigator, he develops lasting protection for clients.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“One of its chief figures on the West Coast is Palo Alto-based Erik Puknys, a robust litigator who also leads the firm’s appellate division – which many consider to be the best in intellectual property in the country. With so much post-grant appeals activity going on right now, he and his group are in hot demand.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“‘Erik Puknys is a really good guy,’ says a client. ‘He has phenomenal knowledge of case law; he’s very sharp on strategy. [He has] really good client skills [and is a] great guy.’”

Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars

“‘Erik Puknys is genuinely interested in your technology and in getting the right patent for your business. He really takes the time to understand what you are doing and then works his magic. Most would fail to get the intellectual property he gets granted and he is great at coming up with creative, effective arguments when you do get a claim rejected.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Erik Puknys flies the flag of celebrated boutique Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner in California. He leads the firm’s appellate practice, which is one of the best in the country.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Puknys leads the firm’s appellate practice, which is one of the best in the business.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

News

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Earns Top Rankings in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Guide; Nearly 60 Attorneys Ranked Finnegan Earns Top Rankings in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Guide; Nearly 60 Attorneys Ranked

May 28, 2026

Intellectual Asset Management (IAM)

Commentary

Top Trade Secrets Decisions of 2025 Top Trade Secrets Decisions of 2025

December 18, 2025

Law360

Commentary

Finnegan’s New AI Practice Is a Project in ‘Interdisciplinary’ Expertise Finnegan’s New AI Practice Is a Project in ‘Interdisciplinary’ Expertise

September 12, 2025

World Intellectual Property Review

Press Release

Finnegan Launches Comprehensive AI Practice Finnegan Launches Comprehensive AI Practice

September 9, 2025

Commentary

Finnegan Opens AI Practice with Dedicated IP Teams Finnegan Opens AI Practice with Dedicated IP Teams

September 9, 2025

Law360 Pulse

Award/Ranking

Best Lawyers Recognizes 44 Finnegan Attorneys in its 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch Best Lawyers Recognizes 44 Finnegan Attorneys in its 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch

August 21, 2025

Best Lawyers
More

Professional Activities

  • American Bar Foundation
    (Fellow, 2021-present)
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
    (board liaison, Veterans Appeals and Veterans Pro Bono Committee, 2026-present; chair, Rules Committee, 2021-2026; vice-chair, Rules Committee, 2020-2021, 2020-2021; vice-chair, Amicus Committee, 2017-2020; chair, Model Jury Instructions Project, 2011-2017, 2011-2017; chair, Patent Litigation Committee, 2011-2017, 2011-2017)
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)
    (member, Amicus Brief Committee, 2026-present)
Admissions and Education

Admissions

  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • District of Columbia
  • California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. District Court, C.D. California
  • U.S. District Court, E.D. California
  • U.S. District Court, N.D. California
  • U.S. District Court, S.D. California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Education

George Mason University School of Law
J.D., with high honors, 1997
Vanderbilt University
M.S., Materials Science, 1991
Vanderbilt University
B.E., Mechanical and Materials Engineering, 1989

Erik's Practices

AI + Finnegan
AI + Trade Secrets
Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
Appeals from the PTAB
Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals
Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
Arbitration and Other ADR
Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals
ITC Section 337 Investigations and Trials
Patent Litigation and Trials
Pretrial Strategies
Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
Trade Secrets
Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Erik's Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
Electrical and Computer Technology
Electronic Devices and Components
Nanotechnology
Robotics
Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
Chemical
Energy
Clean Energy and Renewables
Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
Gaming
Sports, Fitness, and Outdoor Recreation
Life Sciences
Digital Health
Medical Device and Diagnostics
Pharmaceutical

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.