Ropes & Gray Logo
Page Translations

Lance W. Shapiro

Associate
Areas of Practice
  • *
Jump to:

Lance Shapiro is an experienced associate in the intellectual property litigation practice, with particular expertise involving standard essential patents (SEPs) and related Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing matters and agreements. His litigation practice includes a diverse array of technological domains, encompassing cellular telecommunications standards (4G/LTE, 5G), video coding standards (H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC, AV1), networking standards (G.709), consumer electronics, semiconductors, computer-based technologies, and display technologies such as LED and LCD. 

Lance has litigated in nearly every prominent patent jurisdiction, including the District of Delaware, the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Texas, the Northern District of California, the International Trade Commission, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His litigation proficiency covers all facets of litigation, including conducting pre-suit analyses; identifying invalidity, infringement and claim construction positions; leading discovery; and participating in trials and appeals. Lance also maintains an active pro bono practice in state and federal courts and before federal agencies.

During law school, Lance completed two internships with the Honorable Kathleen M. O’Malley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Prior to law school, Lance worked as an engineering consultant for Booz Allen Hamilton, where he developed statistical analytics for a predictive expenditure management software system. He also worked as an engineering intern for three summers at Northrop Grumman during his undergraduate studies.

Lance earned a degree in systems engineering with high distinction from the University of Virginia, where he was a member of the prestigious Rodman Scholars Honors Program. Lance also studied abroad for two summers at the University of Vienna, focusing on German language and European legal and economic studies.

Experience

  • Defending the world’s leading consumer electronics company in two litigations in the Eastern District of Texas involving video coding, cellular communications, and content distribution.
  • Nokia Technologies Oy v. HP Inc. (ITC, D. Del.): defending HP Inc. in two ITC investigations and district court litigation involving H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC, and AV1 video coding standard essential patents and related FRAND issues.
  • HP Inc. v. Access Advance LLC et al. (D. Mass.): representing HP Inc. in a litigation involving a licensing dispute of H.265/HEVC standard essential patents with Access Advance LLC, Dolby International AB, Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Company, and Koninklijke Philips N.V.
  • Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Display Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.): defending a leading LCD display manufacturer in two suits involving twelve patents directed to LCDs, methods of manufacturing LCDs, and related components.
  • Staton Techiya v. Leading Global Audio Technology Company (D. Del., PTAB): defending a global audio technology company in multiple district court cases involving eleven patents related to a variety of wireless and audio technologies, including active noise cancellation.
  • Major Multinational Telecommunications Equipment Company v. PanOptis Patent Management, LLC (S.D.N.Y.): representing a major multinational telecommunications equipment company in a contractual dispute related to a patent license agreement.
  • Express Mobile v. SAP SE (N.D. Cal., PTAB): representing SAP in a multi-patent suit brought by Express Mobile relating to database, user interface, and website generation technology.
  • Defended the world’s leading consumer electronics company in multiple matters involving 5G telecommunications technology and related FRAND issues, resulting in favorable settlement terms.
  • Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Nokia Corporation (E.D. Tex., PTAB): represented IP Bridge in two suits involving multiple patents essential to the 4G/LTE and 5G telecommunications standards against Ericsson’s and Nokia’s cellular infrastructure products and services.
  • Teradyne, Inc. v. Astronics Corp. (C.D. Cal.): represented Teradyne in a copyright infringement suit against Astronics Corporation related to automated equipment for test and industrial applications.
  • RFCyber Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Tex.): defended LG Electronics and obtained favorable early settlement in a five patent suit involving electronic payments.
  • Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (W.D. Tex., PTAB): defended LG Electronics in a suit involving memory devices and variable charge circuits.
  • Verizon Business Network Services v. Major Multinational Telecommunications Equipment Company (PTAB): represented a major multinational telecommunications equipment company in a series of inter partes reviews directed to optical transport networks, resulting in the denial of institution.
  • Cellect, LLC v. Samsung Electronics (D. Colo., PTAB): defending Samsung Electronics in a suit alleging infringement of eleven patents directed to cameras in smartphones and tablets.
  • Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex., PTAB): defended Samsung Electronics in a patent infringement action involving six patents related to LED displays.
  • Carrum Technologies, LLC v. A Major International Automotive Manufacturer (D. Del., PTAB): defended a major international automotive manufacturer in a patent infringement litigation involving adaptive cruise control technology.
  • Canon, Inc. v. TCL Electronics (E.D. Tex., PTAB): defended TCL in a five patent lawsuit related to smart TV functionality and interfaces, leading to a highly favorable settlement before trial.
  • Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Qualcomm (D. Del., PTAB): represented IP Bridge in a patent infringement suit involving eight patents related to semiconductor technology and in related IPRs, resulting in a favorable settlement for IP Bridge.
  • Harris Corp. v. Major Multinational Telecommunications Equipment Company (E.D. Tex., D. Del.): represented a major multinational telecommunications company in an action alleging infringement of patents directed to various networking, 4G/LTE, and Power-Over-Ethernet technologies.
  • StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (D. Mass, E.D. Va., C.D. Cal., Fed. Cir.): represented StrikeForce in a series of district court actions and a related appeal involving out-of-band authentication techniques and systems.
  • PACid v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex.): represented Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement suit involving authentication, which settled after Samsung filed a motion to dismiss on § 101 grounds.
  • Activision Blizzard, Electronic Arts, et al. (PTAB, Fed. Cir.): represented three global computer gaming companies in multiple petitions for inter partes review challenging three patents related to broadcasting information over computer networks, and an appeal to the Federal Circuit.
  • DIFF Scale Operation Research v. Extreme Networks (S.D.N.Y.): represented Extreme Networks in a seven patent lawsuit, which was resolved quickly and favorably for Extreme.
  • Visual Content IP v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex.): defended Samsung Electronics in district court litigation regarding image sensors and imaging software.
  • Conducted numerous patent portfolio infringement assessments and risk/exposure assessments.

Pro Bono

  • Gayle v. Villamarin (S.D.N.Y.): defended artist in suit involving trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and copyright infringement, resulting in favorable summary judgment on all pending claims against Villamarin and leading to a favorable settlement on Villamarin’s counterclaims.
  • New England Innocence Project (NEIP): leading a hair microscopy case review to identify prosecutions where testimony related to hair microscopy may have exceeded accepted scientific standards.
  • Representing applicant seeking asylum from political persecution in collaboration with Immigration Equality.
  • TLDEF and Project Validate: representing or assisting more than two dozen name change applicants with name changes consistent with their identities.

Areas of Practice