Brian Paul Gearing, Ph.D.

He is known in the legal industry for his experience in handling disputes regarding standardized technologies, such as Wi-Fi, 5G and Bluetooth, standard-essential patents, and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing rates, as well as patent damages-related issues arising in such disputes.

Brian possesses extensive experience across a broad range of technologies, including materials science, mechanics and dynamics of materials, cancer therapy, semiconductor and hard disk design and manufacturing, microprocessor technology, wireless communications, and networking equipment and architecture. He also counsels clients on the implementation of emerging technologies such as blockchain and distributed ledgers, as well as the development of innovative products such as virtual currencies and blockchain-based assets. Brian has authored 15 scientific publications and is a named inventor on two U.S. patents pertaining to implantable medical devices and friction and wear of novel nano-coatings (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,251,893 and 8,241,698).

Before law school, Brian earned a master’s degree and a Doctorate of Philosophy, both with a perfect GPA, in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where his research focused on the mechanics and dynamics of materials, with an emphasis on fracture of polymers, as well as mechanical testing at the micro- and nano-scales. During law school at U.C. Berkeley School of Law, Brian was on the executive board of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal and a fellow of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology.

• Lead counsel for MedPharm Services LLC in connection with trademark litigation against SAI Systems International Inc. and related companies regarding intelligent medical software technology before the U.S. District of Puerto Rico, and in five proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
• Lead counsel for BMW AG and BMW of North America LLC in connection with two parallel patent litigations against Infogation Corporation regarding navigation systems before the U.S. Eastern District of Texas. Won complete dismissals of both cases with prejudice and with no payment from BMW.
• Lead counsel for Motorola Mobility LLC in connection with patent litigation against Voltstar Technologies Inc. regarding mobile device charging technologies before the U.S. Southern District of Florida. Won a voluntary dismissal.
• Lead counsel for NEC Corporation in connection with patent litigation against Avayla Licensing LLC concerning video conferencing technology before the U.S. Eastern District of Texas. Achieved successful outcome.
• Lead counsel for Motorola Mobility LLC in connection with patent litigation against Arability IP LLC regarding mobile devices and touch screens before the U.S. Northern District of Illinois. Achieved successful outcome.
• Lead counsel for Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC in connection with patent litigation against Vibrant Licensing LLC regarding cellular products and touch screens before the U.S. District of Delaware. Achieved successful outcome.
• Lead counsel for BMW of North America LLC in connection with patent litigation against Display Technologies LLC pertaining to Bluetooth products before the U.S. Western District of Texas. Won voluntary dismissal.
• Lead counsel for Motorola Mobility LLC in connection with patent litigation against Callstat Solutions LLC regarding cellular products and related FRAND issues before the U.S. Western District of Texas. Won voluntary dismissal.
• Lead counsel for Logitech Inc. in connection with patent litigation against 2BCom LLC concerning networking products and related FRAND issues before the U.S. Northern District of California. Achieved successful outcome.
• Lead counsel for Logitech Inc. in connection with patent litigation against Terrestrial Comms LLC concerning networking products before the U.S. Central District of California. Achieved successful outcome.
• Lead counsel for NEC Corporation in connection with patent litigation against Terrestrial Comms LLC concerning networking products before the U.S. Western District of Texas. Achieved successful outcome.
• Lead counsel for NEC Corporation and NEC Corporation of America in connection with parallel patent litigation against Terrestrial Comms LLC concerning networking products before the U.S. Northern District of Texas after successful transfer out of the U.S. Western District of Texas. Achieved successful outcome.
• Lead counsel for Meditab Software Inc. in connection with patent litigation against DatRec LLC regarding Meditab’s intelligent medical software technology before the U.S. Eastern District of Texas. Won voluntary dismissal.
• Lead counsel for MRSI Systems LLC in parallel patent litigations against Palomar Technologies Inc. concerning high-precision automation equipment before the U.S. District of Massachusetts, U.S. Southern District of California, and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In connection with U.S. District of Massachusetts litigation before Chief Judge Saylor, won the country’s first-ever trial to be held on the issue of IPR estoppel on May 4, 2020, and then obtained a full win on invalidity under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 101. These wins were covered by significant press in major media outlets, including Law360, IPWatchdog, Mealey’s IP/Tech, Global Legal Chronicle, Massachusetts Lawyer’s Weekly, and New Hampshire Business Review.
• Lead counsel for ViaClean Technologies LLC in connection with parallel trade secret and patent litigations against Novalent Ltd. regarding antimicrobial surface-coating technology before the North Carolina State Complex Business Court and U.S. Middle District of North Carolina, including also with respect to an appeal to the U.S. State Supreme Court of North Carolina regarding issues of federal jurisdiction. Achieved favorable outcome.
• Lead counsel for ViaClean Technologies LLC in connection with patent litigation against Allied BioScience Inc. regarding antimicrobial surface-coating technology before the U.S. Eastern District of Texas. Achieved favorable outcome.
• Lead counsel for ViaClean Technologies LLC in connection with trademark litigation against Global BioProtect LLC regarding antimicrobial surface-coating products before the U.S. Middle District of North Carolina. Achieved favorable outcome.
• Counsel for Invacare Corporation in connection with patent litigation against Sunrise Medical (U.S.) LLC concerning the assertion of Invacare patents against wheelchair suspension technology before the U.S. District of Delaware. Achieved late-stage settlement.
• Represented Cisco Systems Inc., including as trial counsel, before the ITC in two parallel investigations (Nos. 944 & 945) against Arista Networks, Inc. These cases were the subject of hundreds of articles and were closely watched by the entire networking industry.
• Represented Cisco Systems Inc., including as trial counsel, before the ITC in an investigation involving Conversant Intellectual Property Management, Inc. f/k/a MOSAID Technologies, Inc. and the assertion of six U.S. patents in the context of Power-over-Ethernet technology. The litigation settled on the eve of the ITC hearing. Also represented Cisco against Conversant in a related proceeding in the U.S. District of Delaware. Cisco’s assertion of racketeering (RICO) claims against Conversant in connection with the district court litigation attracted national attention, including in the Wall Street Journal.
• Represented, including as trial counsel, Cisco and other suppliers of internet wireless routing products in a complex MDL concerning patents alleged to pertain to 802.11-standardized wireless technology. After a seven-day bench trial, determined that the plaintiff’s damages claim was limited to a RAND rate of less than 10 cents for each accused Wi-Fi product and also found that plaintiff’s demands for damages of more than a billion dollars “lacked a credible methodology” and that the plaintiff’s case suffered from a failure of proof. The case was hailed as highly favorable to technology companies and consumers and received worldwide media attention.
• Represented Cisco in an ITC investigation against ChriMar Systems Inc. involving Power-over-Ethernet technology with related proceedings in the U.S. Northern District of California and U.S. Eastern District of Michigan.
• Trial counsel for Intel Corp. against MicroUnity Systems Engineering Inc. in the U.S. Eastern District of Texas in a patent litigation concerning microprocessor and memory controller architectures. The case settled shortly before trial.
• Trial counsel for Israel-based Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd. against ImClone Systems Inc. and Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. in a multibillion-dollar inventorship dispute in the U.S. Southern District of New York over a patent related to the Erbitux (Cetuximab) cancer treatment drug. After a bench trial, received a total win with the court ordering a complete replacement of the named inventors on the patent-at-issue. The trial received worldwide attention, including press in the United States and Israel. The litigation ultimately settled on confidential terms minutes before oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Trial counsel for Shanghai-based Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc. against Applied Materials Inc. in the U.S. Northern District of California in a trade secret misappropriation action involving semiconductor processing tools for etch and CVD. The case settled shortly before trial.
• Represented Tokyo-based Astellas Pharma Inc. in connection with a securities litigation before the U.S. Delaware Court of Chancery.
• Represented Tokyo-based NTT DoCoMo and Softbank Corp. in a patent litigation involving wireless communications and SMS text messaging in the U.S. District of Maryland.
• Represented Tokyo-based Elpida Memory in an international arbitration and mediation involving integrated circuit testing equipment.
• Represented Tokyo-based Sumitomo Corp. in an international dispute regarding an alleged breach of contract regarding mining operations.
• Represented Samsung in an ITC investigation involving wireless communications with encryption and related issues concerning 3G and LTE standardization under ETSI.
• Represented Liechtenstein-based Unaxis in a patent litigation involving hard disk manufacturing tools in the U.S. Central District of California.
• Represented Unaxis in a patent litigation involving DLP television technology in the U.S. Northern District of California.

Brian has also represented clients on a pro bono basis in connection with:

• An appellate hearing before the U.S. Social Security Administration.
• An amicus curiae brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (See In re Pod-Ners, LLC (No. 2008-1492).)
• A Japanese immigration application and appeal for a citizen of the Philippines claiming political asylum in Japan.
• Counseling of potential sex trafficking victims in connection with the Queens Sanctuary for Families’ Anti-Trafficking Project.
• Counsels clients in connection with the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF) regarding the Name Change Project.
• Prevailed for three separate asylum clients in mandamus actions filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and was named in 2025 by the Tahirih Justice Center as pro bono team of the year.

• Selected for 2025 Tahirih Justice Center Pro Bono Counsel of The Year award.
• Awarded New York Pro Bono Service Awards for 2007, 2008, 2014 and 2016.
• New York Intellectual Property Law Association
• New York State Bar Association
• American Bar Association
• International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association