Practice Areas


Osha Liang’s Litigation Practice Group handles a wide variety of intellectual property disputes including patent, trademark, copyright, advertising, ITC Section 337, and trade secret matters.  Supported by our more than 60 intellectual property and technical professionals, we have the science and engineering skills and courtroom experience to represent clients in any patent dispute situation.  Our experienced advocates, chosen to best fit the firm’s client base and law practice philosophy, each have twenty to thirty years of pretrial, bench and jury trial experience in federal district courts throughout the United States.

We have tried cases for both plaintiffs and defendants before numerous U.S. federal and state courts.  Our team of experienced litigators has extensive experience representing clients in the popular Eastern District of Texas, federal districts and the International Trade Commission.  Our practice includes both defending against non-practicing entities with a high rate of success negotiating favorable settlements for our clients early in the litigation process, and where appropriate, mounting an aggressive, substantive defense.

In addition to traditional courtroom litigation, Osha Liang leverages its patent office experience to providing representation at the recently formed Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where we have to date handled over 35 proceedings.  From federal trials to inter partes reviews to covered business method patent reviews, our litigators have handled virtually every type of intellectual property proceeding.


Our attorneys are as diverse as the industries we represent.  Our backgrounds include a wide variety of engineering and science degrees, including electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, material science, chemistry, physics, neuroscience, genetics, biology, cell and molecular biology, food and biotechnology, pharmaceutical sciences, imaging science, and computer science.  Calling upon our wide-ranging experience and focused IP perspective, we create cutting-edge litigation strategies to be dynamic and effective.


Our clients benefit from our business-focused approach to developing litigation strategies tailored to each client’s definition of success.   We invest the time and resources to develop a value-driven relationship with our clients that produces better results, reduces costs, drives increased productivity, and improves the quality of legal services provided.

We believe that open, frank, and regular communication between the Osha Liang team and our clients is of primary importance.  Our clients are involved in, not merely aware of, the progress of their matters at all times and all phases of the litigation.  Because clients almost always know best, we look to and rely upon our clients for assistance in identifying people with knowledge of relevant facts, identifying in-house and outside experts, and identifying and producing relevant documents.  Our attorneys work closely with and guide clients through these often complex and time-consuming issues and tasks. In addition, our experience and collaborative approach result in the most cost-effective, appropriately staffed representation possible.

Early Investigation & Risk Analysis, Together with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Where Appropriate

The firm’s litigation team investigates all disputes as thoroughly as possible at the outset, analyzes the litigation risks with the client, and, where appropriate, seeks early resolution of the dispute through ADR. This approach saves our clients valuable time and resources. It also fosters the continuation of business relations between the parties to the dispute.While not all cases can be resolved through the use of ADR due to the particular facts of a dispute, a need for the discovery tools of litigation, or the character of the opponent, the early consideration of this option is advisable in most cases.The forms of ADR most commonly used by Osha Liang’s litigation team are mediation and arbitration. Our attorneys have mediated or arbitrated a large number of intellectual property and commercial disputes.


  • Patents
    Axalto S.A. v. Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., et al., E.D. Tex.
    Swift Computers, Inc. v. Dictaphone Corporation, et al., S.D. Tex.
    Weatherford International, Inc., et al. v. Casetech International, Inc., S.D. Tex.
    Rainin Instrument LLC v. Molecular BioProducts Inc., E.D. Tex.
    National Oilwell Varco v. Hydril, SD Tex.
    Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc., E.D. Tex.
    Smith International, Inc. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., E.D. Tex.
    Smith International, Inc. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., S.D. Tex.
    Schlumberger Tech v. OSCA Inc, S.D. Tex.
    MPR Services Inc v. ECO-TEC Limited, et al, S.D. Tex.
  • Trademarks
    SETCO v. Bridgestone/Firestone (Oklahoma)
    Pollution Denim & Co. v. Pollution Clothing, et al. (California)
    The Proctor and Gamble Company v. Lidl Stiftung & Co.KG, Opp. No. 91158060 before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
    Mr. Edward Kolos v. Water Standard Company, L.L.C., Opp. No. 91181615 before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
    Buc-ee’s Ltd. v. Buck’s, Inc., Opp. No. 91177801 before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
  • Copyrights
    Frank Betz Associates, Inc. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. et al. (N.D. Ga.)
    Frank Betz Associates, Inc. v. Jim Walters Homes (D.S.C.)
    Kipp Flores Architects v. Signature Homes (E.D. Va.)
    Kevin Young Designer, Inc. v. Abshire Custom Homes (S.D. Tex.)
    King Empire v. Milan Courtyard Homes (S.D. Tex.)
    Patrick Berrios Design, Inc. v. Arthur Monroe Construction et. al. (S.D. Tex)
    Blackmer v. The Woodlands Development Corp. (S.D. Tex.)
    Blackmer v. Shadow Creek Ranch (S.D. Tex.)
    Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. George F. Tibsherany Architects, Inc. et al. (D. Az.)
    Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Metropolitan Life et al. (D. Az.)
    Roth Architects, Inc. v. Cornerstone Architects, Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill.)
    Iggulden Architectual Group v. Woodley Architectural Group (C.D. Cal.)
    The Weintraub Organization v. BORM Associates (D. Colo)
    Christopher Phelps & Associates v. Galloway (W.D.N.C.)
    Schumacher Homes Operating v. Reserve Builders (N.D. Ohio)
  • Trade Secrets
    Plant Automation Services, Inc. v. LimeWare, Inc. (software trade secrets)
    Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. v. Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. (complex, highly-technical breach of contract/breach of warranty matter)
    Gyrodata, Inc. v. Baker-Hughes, Inc., et al., (software & hardware trade secrets)
    BMC Software, Inc. v. Neon Systems, Inc., et al. (software trade secrets)