Vincent Y. Ling is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Munger, Tolles & Olson.

His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation at both the trial and appellate levels, particularly in patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation matters.

Mr. Ling has substantial trial experience, trying cases to jury verdict in numerous district courts, including the District of Delaware, Northern District of California, Central District of California, and Eastern District of Texas. He has also helped secure significant appellate victories, including the reversal of a jury verdict of over $1.2 billion on behalf of Kite Pharma, Inc., a subsidiary of Gilead Sciences, in litigation over the cancer treatment Yescarta®. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in high stakes litigation across a range of industries, including biopharmaceuticals, wireless communications, and semiconductor and computer technologies.

He is repeatedly recognized in The Best Lawyers of America guide on its “Ones to Watch” list. In 2020, Mr. Ling was selected as a Pathfinder for the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD). The LCLD Pathfinder program’s focus is to help increase diversity at the leadership levels of the nation’s law firms. He is also on the board of the Judge Paul R. Michel Intellectual Property American Inn of Court; was past chair of the Patent and Trade Secret Committee of the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association (LAIPLA); and is an active member of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. He has also authored articles on legal topics for Law 360, Intellectual Property Magazine, and the American Bar Association.

Mr. Ling joined the firm after clerking with Chief Judge Sharon Prost of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Prior to his clerkship, he was an associate in the New York office of an international law firm, where he focused on intellectual property litigation. He also clerked for Judge Kent A. Jordan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. During law school, he served as a legal writing instructor.

Experience

Noteworthy matters include representing:

  • Google in various patent infringement matters, including
    • a jury trial in the District of Delaware over functionality in Google’s Pixel smartphones and mobile apps, resulting in a complete defense verdict; and
    • multi-patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas over Google’s Android-based payment platform, Google Pay.
  • Kite Pharma, Inc., a subsidiary of Gilead Sciences, in helping to win an intellectual property battle at the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court between two prominent start-ups over the cancer treatment Yescarta®.
  • Intel Corp. in a case in the Western District of Texas alleging patent infringement by Intel’s programmable logic devices.
  • 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.
  • Amgen in obtaining a favorable settlement on the eve of trial, including a mid-single digit royalty, resolving a trade secrets dispute brought against Coherus BioSciences involving the drug Neulasta®.
  • Checkr, Inc. in a matter defending against allegations of trade secrets theft, unfair competition, and breach of contract.
  • Applied Materials in representing its interests as the victim corporation, following allegations that executives conspired to steal trade secrets relating to deposition technology for semiconductor devices from the company and used them to launch a competing business to be based in the United States and China.

Publications

  • “Trade Secret Law and AI: Navigating Emerging Risks and Legal Implications,” Daily Journal (2024), with Miriam Kim and Nate Sussman.
  • “Litigation Strategies for When Trade Secret, Patent Converge,” Law 360 (July 2022)
  • “Practice Guide to Section 285 ‘Exceptional Case’ Findings,” American Bar Association (Jan. 2016)
  • “UPC Recap: Have You Been Paying Attention?,” Intellectual Property Magazine (Feb. 2015)

Experience

Noteworthy matters include representing:

  • Google in various patent infringement matters, including
    • a jury trial in the District of Delaware over functionality in Google’s Pixel smartphones and mobile apps, resulting in a complete defense verdict; and
    • multi-patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas over Google’s Android-based payment platform, Google Pay.
  • Kite Pharma, Inc., a subsidiary of Gilead Sciences, in helping to win an intellectual property battle at the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court between two prominent start-ups over the cancer treatment Yescarta®.
  • Intel Corp. in a case in the Western District of Texas alleging patent infringement by Intel’s programmable logic devices.
  • 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.
  • Amgen in obtaining a favorable settlement on the eve of trial, including a mid-single digit royalty, resolving a trade secrets dispute brought against Coherus BioSciences involving the drug Neulasta®.
  • Checkr, Inc. in a matter defending against allegations of trade secrets theft, unfair competition, and breach of contract.
  • Applied Materials in representing its interests as the victim corporation, following allegations that executives conspired to steal trade secrets relating to deposition technology for semiconductor devices from the company and used them to launch a competing business to be based in the United States and China.

Publications

  • “Trade Secret Law and AI: Navigating Emerging Risks and Legal Implications,” Daily Journal (2024), with Miriam Kim and Nate Sussman.
  • “Litigation Strategies for When Trade Secret, Patent Converge,” Law 360 (July 2022)
  • “Practice Guide to Section 285 ‘Exceptional Case’ Findings,” American Bar Association (Jan. 2016)
  • “UPC Recap: Have You Been Paying Attention?,” Intellectual Property Magazine (Feb. 2015)