Sean Murray

Partner

Orange County

949-760-0404

sean.murray@knobbe.com

Download vCard

Overview

Experience

Resources

Sean M. Murray is a partner in our Orange County office. Mr. Murray represents various clients in all types of patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright disputes.

Mr. Murray received a Bachelor of Arts from Thomas Aquinas College, where he was enrolled in a Great Books program emphasizing philosophy and mathematics. He received a Juris Doctorate from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2000, afterwards serving as a law clerk to the Honorable A. Richard Caputo of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Murray was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2001.

Mr. Murray joined the firm in 2001 and became a partner in 2006.

Clerk Experience

Law clerk to the Honorable A. Richard Caputo, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2000-2001

Education

University of Virginia School of Law (J.D., 2000)

Thomas Aquinas College (B.A., 1997)

University of Virginia School of Law

Thomas Aquinas College

State Bar of California

Supreme Court of the United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

U.S. District Court - Central District of California

U.S. District Court - Southern District of California

U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Texas

Medical Devices & Procedures

Software & Information Technology

Orange County Bar Association

Federal Circuit Bar Association

St. Thomas More Society

Practice Areas

Medical Device Litigation

Trade Secret & Employment Mobility Litigation

Trademark & Brand Protection Litigation

KFx Medical Corp. v. Arthrex Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-01698 (S.D. Cal. 2013), aff’d, No. 11-1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Obtained a jury verdict of $29 million for induced infringement of three orthopedic surgery patents on behalf of a start-up medical device company. The district court granted additional damages and interest, bringing the total award to $35 million. Successfully opposed the defendant’s appeal to the Federal Circuit and its petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LLP, No. 09-CV-176-KFG (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2011).

Represented a medical device company accused of infringing five patents on devices used in laparoscopic surgery. After two jury trials, obtained judgments of invalidity and noninfringement of four of the asserted patents. Limited damages on the fifth patent to less than 10% of the amount sought by the plaintiff. Affirmed on appeal.

Dr. Paula Small v. Nobel Biocare USA (SDNY).

Defended dental-implant manufacturer against patentee on two patents relating to dental-implant design. Although the patents had survived reexamination and reissue proceedings in the Patent Office, obtained summary judgment of invalidity of one patent due to an on-sale bar, and summary judgment of invalidity of the second patent due to reissue recapture and failure to satisfy the written description requirement.

Monster Energy Co. v. HRHH Hotel Casino (JAMS arbitration).

Successfully enforced trademark-assignment agreement with Hard Rock Hotel relating to Monster’s REHAB brand and obtained attorneys-fee award.

Gart v. Logitech, Inc., CV 98-05957 CBM (C.D. Cal.).

Represented plaintiff in a patent-infringement suit relating to the ergonomic design of computer mice. After a successful appeal regarding claim construction issues, obtained a favorable settlement of the case. Continued enforcement efforts have resulted in several other licenses with mouse manufacturers. Opinion published at 67 USPQ2d 1263 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

Zimmer Inc. v. Nobel Biocare, USA, Inc.

Defended dental-implant manufacturer in patent infringement dispute litigated in federal district court and in binding arbitration. Conducted arbitration through final hearing, obtaining a judgment of no infringement in connection with a patent that six major competitors had previously licensed and that had generated millions of dollars in royalty payments. Obtained from the district court both confirmation of the arbitration decision and an attorneys-fee award in excess of $2 million.

Articles

Fed. Circ. In Feb.: Using Prior Products To Invalidate A Patent, Law360, February 29, 2024.

Fed. Circ. In Jan.: One Word Can Affect Claim Construction, Law360, January 31, 2024.

Medtronic’s Cautionary Tale Of Fed. Circ. Word Limits, Law360, January 9, 2024.

The Fed. Circ. In Nov.: Factual Support And Appellate Standing, Law360, November 30, 2023.

Fed. Circ. Elekta Holding May Make Patent Prosecution Harder, Law360, November 1, 2023.

Strategies For Winning The IPR Race, Law360, October 24, 2017

A Circuit Could Keep Could Patent Cases In East Texas, Law360, July 14, 2017.

The Surprising Persistence of Attorney Incivility, Ad Veritatem, September 2015.

Why Patent Defendants Shouldn’t Litigate Too Aggressively, IP Law360, September 24, 2014.

“An Overview of U.S. Patent Litigation for Canadians,” 28 Canadian Intellectual Property Review 1, (2012).

Can the Seagate Standard Be Salvaged?, IP Law360, December 6, 2011.

Witness Location, Location, Location, Los Angeles Daily Journal, December 15, 2009.

Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics: The Supreme Court Provides Limited Protection To Purchasers Of Proprietary Technology, IP Law360, September 8, 2008.

Author, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog