Peter E. Gratzinger

Peter E. Gratzinger

Peter Gratzinger is of counsel in the Los Angeles office of Munger, Tolles & Olson.

His practice focuses on intellectual property and antitrust disputes in high technology industries. He has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including software, semiconductors, entertainment and pharmaceuticals.

Mr. Gratzinger frequently writes and speaks about various aspects of intellectual property law. In May 2018, he delivered a presentation about California’s unique approach to trade secret rules at a program hosted by Law Seminars International. Mr. Gratzinger also teaches Internet Law as an adjunct professor at Pepperdine Law School.

Recently, Mr. Gratzinger represented Gilead subsidiary Kite Pharma in a trial and on appeal in a multibillion-dollar case involving the cancer treatment drug Yescarta®,  resulting in the invalidation of the patent asserted against Kite, represented Amgen in defending against infringement claims relating to its launch of biosimilar oncology therapeutics, and represented PNC Bank in disputes relating to mobile check deposit and auto-capture technology.

He also maintains an active pro bono practice and has provided pro bono representation in various cases involving immigration, First Amendment law, election law and other issues. He has been honored with the ACLU’s Criminal Justice Award for his work challenging the constitutionality of jail informant policies. Mr. Gratzinger is on the Board of Managers of the Ketchum Downtown YMCA, a non-profit serving the downtown Los Angeles community, and helps to organize the annual YMCA Los Angeles Stair Climb fundraiser.


Some of Mr. Gratzinger's key representations include: 

  • Kite Pharma, Inc., a subsidiary of Gilead Sciences, in winning an intellectual property battle at the Federal Circuit between two prominent start-ups over the cancer treatment Yescarta®.
  • Amgen in defending against allegations of patent infringement relating to its bevacizumab (Mvasi®) and trastuzumab (Kanjinti®) biosimilars.
  • AbbVie Inc., in successfully preventing the certification of class actions by third-party payers and wholesalers of the drug Niaspan, and in a related case brought by the Orange County District Attorney on behalf of California drug purchasers, alleging “sham” settlements of patent infringement suits to prevent generic drugs from entering the market.
  • Google in a multi-patent case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and six parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board resulting in a combination of dismissal of claims, non-infringement findings and invalidity findings for each of the 10 patents asserted against numerous Google products, as well as Google services for mobile phones and tablets.
  • Lyft, Inc. in multiple actions regarding classification of rideshare drivers and arbitration, including in the California Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit.
  • PNC Bank, one of the largest banks in the U.S., in limiting the damages awarded in multiple patent infringement lawsuits filed by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in the Eastern District of Texas relating to its remote check deposit patent portfolio.
  • LG Display in its defense against a class action antitrust case stemming from allegations of price-fixing among manufacturers of display panels.
  • Microsoft in wide-ranging antitrust and intellectual property litigation concerning technological measures in the Xbox 360 videogame console designed to preclude unauthorized accessories. The litigation included DMCA, copyright, trade secret, patent, design patent, trademark, and Kodak “aftermarket” antitrust claims.
  • Walt Disney Company and its subsidiary ABC in a copyright and trade secret action brought by CBS alleging that the ABC reality program “The Glass House” infringed on the copyrights to the CBS reality program “Big Brother.” MTO opposed a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the program; CBS later dropped its case.


  • After O2 Micro: The Court's Evolving Duty to Map Words to Things,” 32 Santa Clara High Technology Journal 141 (2016)
  • “Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants,” California Business Litigation handbook (2016)
  • “Was the Telescope Obvious? An Inquiry into Simultaneous Invention,” 13 The Columbia Science and Technology Review 71 (2011)
  • “Machines and Transformations: The Past, Present, and Future Patentability of Software,” 8 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 247 (2010)