×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Fish & Richardson P.C.Of Counsel
no photo

Shekhar Vyas

Not yet reviewed

12390 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130

Complex Litigation, Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Litigation and 7 more

About Shekhar Vyas

Shekhar Vyas is a lawyer practicing complex litigation, intellectual property, intellectual property litigation and 7 other areas of law. Shekhar received a B.S. degree from George Washington University in 1995, and has been licensed for 22 years. Shekhar practices at Fish & Richardson P.C. in San Diego, CA.

Reviews for Shekhar

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Litigation 1
    • Complex Litigation
  • Intellectual Property 3
    • Patents
    • Trademarks
    • Copyrights
  • Other 5
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • Patent Litigation
    • Patent Application
    • Trademark Litigation
    • Copyright Litigation

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Of Counsel
    Firm Name
    Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Transactions
    Multimedia Patent Trust and Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft (S.D. Cal. 2008). Defended Microsoft against video compression patent asserted by MPT and worked on ten patent counterclaims filed by Microsoft against Alcatel-Lucent. Jury returned a verdict of no infringement and awarded no damages to MPT. Opposing Counsel: Kirkland and Ellis; Lucent v. Microsoft (S.D. Cal. 2006). Defended Microsoft against three speech compression patents in multi-patent case brought by Lucent. Lucent dismissed two of the speech patents before trial. Court granted summary judgment of no infringement on the third speech patent, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Opposing Counsel: Kirkland and Ellis; Toshiba Corporation v. Juniper Networks, Inc et al.(D. Del. 2005). Represented Juniper against Toshiba in assertion of four patents related to router technology. Case won on summary judgment and upheld on appeal. Opposing Counsel: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier, and Neustadt, P.C.; Intel v. Broadcom (D. Del. 2003). Represented Intel in asserting five patents against Broadcom wherein jury returned verdict for Broadcom on two patents, after which Judge granted Intel's motion for new trial and case settled. Opposing Counsel: McDermott, Will, and Emory and Wilson Sonsini, LLP; Bellcore v. FORE Systems (D. Del. 2001). Defended FORE against four ATM and Ethernet patents. Bellcore dismissed two patents prior to trial. After favorable Markman ruling on the two remaining patents, court entered final judgment of no infringement for FORE. Named top defense victory by National Law Journal in 2000. Federal Circuit affirmed one patent and reversed and remanded the other. Case settled after remand. Opposing Counsel: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, and Dunner, LLP.

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2004, California
    registered to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
    Memberships
    State Bar of California.
  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    St. John's University
    Class of 1999
    J.D.
    Other Education
    George Washington University
    Class of 1995
    B.S.
    Electrical Engineering

Email Shekhar Vyas

Case type is required.
A valid zip code is required.
A valid city is required.
State is required.
Country is required.
Outside the US or Canada?
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

Contact Information

First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
City:
State:
Country:
Case Description:
Contact Information
First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Phone Number:
Return to Profile
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions