Overview
Sean M. Murray’s two decades of experience representing clients in patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright disputes has afforded him a breadth and depth of experience that has proven invaluable to clients in high-stakes intellectual property disputes. Sean represents clients in a broad range of technology sectors and before every sort of tribunal, including federal district courts, federal appellate courts and the International Trade Commission. Sean’s litigation successes include a summary judgment victory for lululemon, a defense ruling for Monster Energy following a bench trial, trial and post-trial wins for Nobel Biocare at the International Trade Commission, and a $35 million jury verdict and Federal Circuit affirmance for KFx Medical in KFx Medical Corporation v. Arthrex, Inc.
Sean authors a monthly column on notable patent decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and is the editor of Knobbe’s Litigation Blog. Before he joined Knobbe, Sean served as a law clerk to the Honorable A. Richard Caputo, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Education
- University of Virginia School of Law (J.D., 2000)
- Thomas Aquinas College (B.A., 1997)
Affiliations
Orange County Bar Association
Federal Circuit Bar Association
St. Thomas More Society
Representative Experience
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.
News & Insights
Articles
Co-author, Law360 series on IP-related Federal Circuit decisions
- Fed. Circ. In March: IPR And The Limits Of Retroactivity, Law360, April 30, 2026.
- Fed. Circ. In February: When Grammar Trumps Patent Specs, Law360, March 26, 2026.
- Fed. Circ. In Jan.: On The Validity Of Expert Testimony, Law360, February 20, 2026.
- Fed. Circ. In November: Looking For Patent ‘Blaze Marks’, Law360, January 9, 2026.
- Fed. Circ. In Oct.: Spotlight On Wording Beyond Patent Claims, Law360, December 4, 2025.
- Fed. Circ. In September: The Printed Matter Doctrine Expands, Law360, October 30, 2025.
- Fed. Circ. In August: A Framework For AIA Derivation Disputes, Law360, September 25, 2025.
- Fed. Circ. In July: Instability In IPR Requirements, Law360, August 28, 2025.
- Fed. Circ. In June: Transitional Phrases In Patent Claims, Law360, July 31, 2025.
- Fed. Circ. In May: Evaluating Opportunistic Trademark Filings, June 26, 2025.
View additional articles here.
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
