Victor Cheung joined Ropes & Gray in 2017 as an associate in the intellectual property litigation group. Prior to joining the firm, Victor was an associate at an IP boutique law firm in Northern Virginia. There, he gained valuable experience drafting and prosecuting patent applications, but focused his practice on post-grant patent procedures at the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB), primarily with respect to inter partes reviews (IPRs).
Victor’s practice involves clients in a variety of technologies, including electronic displays, wireless communications, integrated circuits, audio devices, computer networking, computer software, and other consumer electronics.
Before law school, Victor was a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where he examined patent applications related to games of chance and amusement devices (electromechanical, video, and computer gaming), in addition to applications related to educational demonstrational materials.
- Unified Patents Inc. v. Portal Communications, LLC (IPR2019-00513): Filed IPR against patent directed to natural language search interface.
- Unified Patents Inc. v. Universal Cipher LLC et al. (IPR2019-00498): Filed IPR against patent directed to encryption technology.
- Unified Patents Inc. v. SpeakWare, Inc. et al. (IPR2019-00495): Filed IPR against patent directed to voice recognition technology.
- Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC (IPR2019-01126): Filed IPR against patent directed to video processing technology.
- A leading U.S. consumer electronics company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd. (IPR2019-00611, IPR2019-00612): Filed IPRs against patents directed to smartphone wake and unlock technologies.
- A leading U.S. consumer electronics company v. Firstface Co., Ltd. (IPR2019-00613, IPR2019-00614, IPR2019-01011, IPR2019-01012): Filed IPRs against patents directed to smartphone wake and unlock technologies.
- Arris International et al. v. A leading multinational technology company (IPR2016-00827; IPR2016-00828): Represented patent owner. Defended patents directed to video processing technology. All challenges denied by the PTAB.*
- Viasat v. Advanced Media Networks (IPR2016-00628; IPR2016-00629): Defended patents directed to mobile WiFi technology. All challenges denied by the PTAB.*
- A leading multinational technology company v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC (IPR2015-01716; IPR2016-00367; IPR2016-00384; IP2016-00385): Filed IPRs against patents directed to telecommunications technologies. As a result of these IPRs, the dispute between the companies settled.*
- GN Hearing A/S v. Oticon A/S (IPR2015-00103; IPR2015-00104; IPR2015-01947; IP2015-01948): Filed IPRs against patents directed to audio processing technologies. As a result of these IPRs, the disputes between the companies settled.*
- Innolux Corp v. Semiconductor Energy Labs (IPR2013-00038; IPR2013-00066; IPR2013-00068): Challenged the semiconductor patents of Semiconductor Energy Labs (SEL) directed to complex TFT semiconductors and manufacturing methodologies. As a result of these and additional IPRs, the dispute between the companies settled.*
*Experience prior to joining Ropes & Gray
- Contributor, “Post-Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” Practicing Law Institute (2013-2017)
- Contributor, “The Supreme Court on Patent Law,” Aspen Publishers (2014)