College of William Mary, J.D., 2005
Harvard University, A.L.M., (Government – candidate)
University of California, Los Angeles, B.S., 2002 (Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology)Practice Areas
Intellectual Property Litigation, including patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark/trade dress, unfair competition, right of publicity, and licensing disputes.
Complex Commercial Litigation, including class action defense, defense of “consumer claims” under the Lanham Act and unfair competition statutes, breach of contract, and accounting issues
Mr. Barari, Senior Counsel at the firm, focuses on patent and other intellectual property litigation. He has litigated or otherwise counseled clients for patent-related matters in various fields, including molecular biology, computer software, mobile communications, systems monitoring and electronics. A former in-house attorney for a biotech company and former employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, as well as a current member of the patent bar, Mr. Barari has a strong background in patent analysis and proceedings before the USPTO. Mr. Barari also has extensive experience counseling clients regarding copyright, trademark, right of publicity and unfair competition matters, and has assisted companies with developing and implementing strategies for protection and licensing of their intellectual property portfolios. Mr. Barari’s practice has included cases in various districts across the country, as well as appellate matters before the Ninth Circuit and the Federal Circuit.
Natera, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Lead counsel representing declaratory judgment plaintiff asserting that patent-in-suit relating to non-invasive, prenatal genetic testing is not valid and not infringed. Obtained summary judgment of invalidity on the grounds that the patent-in-suit is not directed to patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Unanimously affirmed by the Federal Circuit in a consolidated appeal, Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
AntiCancer, Inc. v. Carestream Health, Inc. (S.D. Cal.) Defended medical equipment company against claims of infringement of patents concerning use of cancer cells transformed to express green fluorescing proteins. The case settled favorably after partial summary judgment of non-infringement was granted in favor of client.
Genetic Technologies Limited v. Natera, Inc. (D. Del. and N.D. Cal.) Lead counsel defending genetic testing provider against claims of infringement of patent for DNA detection methods. After winning transfer from the District of Delaware to defendant’s home district, the Northern District of California, negotiated “walk away” settlement with plaintiff dropping all claims without payment of any damages or license fees by defendant.
Netlist v. Diablo (N.D. Cal.) Trial of trade secret, patent, and trademark claims involving HyperCloud® LR-DIMM memory module technology.
WiAV v. Motorola (E.D. Va.) Member of a team representing patent-owner Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. against claims of invalidity and unenforceability for eight of its patents related to speech coder technology.
EBS Automotive Systems, et al v. Illinois Tool Works, et al. (S.D. Cal.) Representing Illinois Tool Works in two patent infringement cases involving motor vehicle maintenance equipment.
International Printer Corp. v. Brother International Corp. et al. (E.D. Tex.) Defended producer of imaging and printing equipment in patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas regarding systems and methods for monitoring and controlling copy machines.
Honda Motor Co. Managed transition of American Honda’s entire copyright portfolio into digital media, and developed ongoing program for copyright renewal and registration.
Davis v. Electronic Arts (N.D. Cal.) Represented class of former NFL athletes in large-scale class-action suit against video game company for right-of-publicity violations. The Ninth Circuit has upheld the district court’s finding that EA could not claim an “incidental use” or a First Amendment defense to former NFL players’ right-of-publicity claim based on EA’s use of former NFL players’ likenesses in its “Madden NFL” franchise.