Samuel N. Tiu

SAMUEL TIU is a skilled IP litigator in the areas of patents and trade secrets. Sam has litigated IP cases in a wide variety of technologies including industrial and chemical processes, solar and laser technologies, nanotechnology, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, computer animation and graphics, video and data transmission, network technology, and video display technology.

Representative Cases:

• In re Certain Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules with Nanostructures, Inv. No. 337-TA-1271 – Led the team that successfully defeated the infringement claims against Canadian Solar in a six-patent case relating to silicon nanowires/nanostructures and semiconductor processing.
• Amgen v. Sandoz (D.N.J.) – Successfully tried and obtained a permanent injunction for Amgen in the biotech industry’s first major biosimilar litigation with Sandoz, thus protecting Amgen’s rights to its blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis biopharmaceutical.
• Hanwha v. LONGi Solar Technology – Represented LONGi Solar in its defense against Hanwha’s patents relating to solar cell composition and manufacturing in the ITC and PTAB and secured a finding of non-infringement (ITC) and patent invalidity (PTAB); both affirmed on appeal.

Sam is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and counsels clients on various aspects of intellectual property, including intellectual property procurement strategies, licensing, and due diligence. Managing Intellectual Property named Sam a “Patent Star” from 2019–2023. Sam is also recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® for Litigation — Intellectual Property (2026). Before starting his legal career, Sam worked in the biotechnology industry for seven years. He has a technical background in microbiology and molecular genetics, and he is also fluent in Chinese.

Life Science and Chemical Cases:

• Bio-Rad Laboratories v. 10X Genomics (Cal. Superior Court) – Counsel for Bio-Rad in a trade secret misappropriation case relating to miniaturized droplet microfluidics technology and chemical manufacturing process, and related arbitration.
• Genentech v. University of Pennsylvania (N.D. Cal.) – Instrumental in putting together key defenses for Genentech in a patent infringement case relating to breast cancer treatment, involving potentially more than US$1 billion in royalties. The case settled favorably for Genentech on the eve of trial, obviating a three-week jury trial and a one-day bench trial on inequitable conduct.
• FMC Corporation v. Summit Agro USA LLC et al. (ITC) – Trial counsel for Summit Agro, an affiliate of Sumitomo Corporation, before the U.S. International Trade Commission, in a patent case involving herbicides. After defeating FMC Corp.’s initial motion for temporary relief, Sam successfully secured for his client a final determination of no Section 337 violation on grounds of noninfringement, patent invalidity, and lack of domestic industry.
• Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek (W.D. Tenn.) – Successfully tried and secured a jury verdict of infringement and validity for Synthes and Spine Solutions (now part of Johnson & Johnson) for a patent relating to spinal disc replacement, and obtained entry of a permanent injunction against Medtronic Sofamor Danek’s lumbar artificial disc products. The jury verdict of validity and 18% royalty was upheld on appeal.
• Pacesetter v. Cardiac Pacemakers (D. Minn.) – Successful in representing Pacesetter in the enforcement of four patents relating to cardiac pacemakers and implantable defibrillators, which led to a favorable cross-license agreement and global peace between the parties. 
• Ino Therapeutics, v. SensorMedics and Pulmonox (D. N.J.) – Successful dismissal of a patent infringement claim for SensorMedics and Pulmonox relating to pharmaceutical nitric oxide delivery, and secured a highly favorable settlement through the prosecution of antitrust counterclaims against the patentee.

ITC Section 337 Cases:

• In re Certain Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules with Nanostructures, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1271 – Secured non-infringement and invalidity win for Canadian Solar on six patents relating to silicon nanowires/nanostructures and semiconductor processing.
• In re Certain Shingled Solar Modules, Components, Thereof, and Methods for Manufacturing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1223 – Represented Canadian Solar in investigation relating to shingled solar modules and laser technologies, and secured favorable settlement without any monetary payment to patentee.
• In re Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1201 – Represented VIZIO, Inc., TPV International, and CaiHong Optoelectronics in investigation relating to LCD TVs, and secured a favorable settlement for clients in light of the strong invalidity and non-infringement defenses.
• In re Certain Photovoltaic Cells and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1151 – Secured non-infringement win for LONGi Solar on solar technology relating to PERC cells via summary determination, and successfully ended case before trial.
• In re Certain Sulfentrazone, Sulfentrazone Compositions, and Processes for Making Sulfentrazone, Inv. No. 337-TA-914 – Successfully defended Summit Agro in a patent suit concerning herbicide chemical composition and processes, obtaining both non-infringement and patent invalidity rulings.
• In re Certain Rubber Resins, Inv. No. 337-TA-849 – Counsel for Sino Legend in a trade secret case involving industrial manufacturing process for phenolic resins and tackifiers. Successfully invalidated most of the asserted trade secrets and guided client in successful re-design.
• In re Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-617 – Represented AmTRAN, VIZIO, and Proview, three of the respondents in patent suit concerning digital televisions. Bench trial in 2008. 

Technology, Media, and Entertainment Cases:

• Koenig & Bauer v. Muhlbauer, Inc. (E.D. Va.) – Counsel to Koenig & Bauer in its enforcement action against Muhlbauer, Inc.; prevailed on all claims asserted by Koenig & Bauer regarding infringement of patent relating to digital inspection systems.
• USA Video Technology v. Time Warner Cable (E.D. Tex.) – Counsel to Time Warner Cable, securing an early summary judgment of non-infringement before substantial discovery in the Eastern District of Texas in a case involving video-on-demand technology.
• Sitrick v. DreamWorks and Warner Bros. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented DreamWorks and Warner Bros. in successfully invalidating by way of summary judgment, two video processing patents asserted against the movies, Gladiator, Matrix, and Lord of the Rings, with summary judgment affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
• USA Video Technology v. Movielink (D. Del.) – Successfully obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Movielink relating to video-on-demand technology. Judgment upheld on appeal.

Other Cases:

• Briggs & Stratton v. Chongqing RATO Power, Co., Ltd. (N.D. N.Y.) – Counsel to Chongqing RATO Power Co. and its subsidiary, Denver Global Products, in their patent infringement defense against Briggs & Stratton, and successfully invalidated Briggs & Stratton’s patents and defeated its efforts to enjoin Denver Global Products’ multi-purpose vehicle.

IPR Proceedings:

• LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. et al. v. Hanwha Solutions Corp. – Successfully invalidated patents relating to surface passivation techniques in solar cells.

• American Bar Association 
• National Asian Pacific American Bar Association 
• Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association