Robert J. Gajarsa

Washington, D.C.
  • 555 Eleventh Street, NW
  • Suite 1000
  • Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
  • USA
Profile Experience

Robert Gajarsa is an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins and a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation and Supreme Court & Appellate Practices. Mr. Gajarsa is a seasoned first-chair appellate litigator who represents clients at all stages of litigation.

Mr. Gajarsa has a vibrant IP appellate practice. He is one of only a select few attorneys nationwide with a practice focused on high-stakes intellectual property appeals before the Federal Circuit. Since clerking (twice) at the Federal Circuit, he has led and briefed dozens of appeals to the Court. Clients have routinely selected him to present oral argument to the Court, including four times in 2019. Mr. Gajarsa has also been selected as appointed pro bono counsel in several high-profile Federal Circuit appeals concerning military or law enforcement officers.

Mr. Gajarsa routinely leverages his substantive expertise to assist clients with complex IP issues beyond the appellate arena too. He frequently imbeds with trial teams to help shepherd patent cases through their most critical pre- and post-trial stages, including pre-suit investigation, Markman, summary judgment, and post-trial motion practice. And his clients have repeatedly tapped him for critical advice on vital in-house IP strategy issues such as IP prosecution for bet-the-company products, key IP licenses, transactional due diligence, and regulatory clearance.

In addition, Mr. Gajarsa advises clients on an array of matters outside of intellectual property, including false advertising, antitrust, commercial free speech, and start-up financing and formation.

Mr. Gajarsa is also active in the legal community. He has been an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center since 2017, where he teaches Patent Appeals at the Federal Circuit, a writing and experiential seminar that covers all procedural and substantive aspects of successful Federal Circuit appeals. Additionally, Mr. Gajarsa currently serves as the Co-Chair of the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Veterans’ Law Committee.

Prior to joining Latham, Mr. Gajarsa completed appellate clerkships for Chief Judge Sharon Prost and Judge Raymond Chen, both of the Federal Circuit, and Judge Kent Jordan of the Third Circuit. At those courts, Mr. Gajarsa regularly assisted in the disposition of a wide range of intellectual property matters, including patent, trademark, copyright, and Lanham Act disputes, and a variety of other matters, including executive agency actions, federal tax and accounting standards, federal employment disputes, veterans’ benefits, water rights, and tribal law.

Mr. Gajarsa manages an active appellate docket. He has assisted clients in over fifty Federal Circuit matters, has authored dozens of briefs and key motions, and routinely argues and leads appeals as principal counsel before the Federal Circuit. Mr. Gajarsa has also been selected as appointed counsel numerous times in high-profile pro bono matters before the Federal Circuit. In addition, Mr. Gajarsa assists clients in matters before the United States Supreme Court, including as principal counsel in seeking certiorari.

Mr. Gajarsa also has significant experience at the trial level, where he has shepherded cases from complaint to decision, led international discovery, argued successfully at several hearings, and authored numerous pretrial and post-trial dispositive briefs.

Representative Litigation Matters:
  • Grunenthal GmbH v. Alkem Laboratories Limited, et al. Represented and successfully argued on behalf of Hikma Pharmaceuticals in Federal Circuit appeals concerning patent infringement judgments for billion-dollar opioid drug.
  • EnerPol, LLC v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. Advised on trial matters and represented Schlumberger in Federal Circuit appeals that successfully defended noninfringement judgment for accused billion-dollar oil well products.
  • Quest Integrity USA, LLC. Represented Quest in multiple successful Federal Circuit appeals of summary judgment of invalidity for patents concerning furnace tube inspection systems.
  • Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec Corp. Defended Symantec during jury trial in multi-patent case concerning antivirus and anti-spam technology. Represented Symantec in multiple Federal Circuit appeals and successfully invalidated all asserted patent claims under § 101, including reversing the district court’s opinion insofar as it upheld one patent.
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Co. v. Par Pharmaceuticals Inc. Represented Par in expedited appeal to the Federal Circuit and successfully defended noninfringement judgment obtained after a bench trial in case concerning Alzheimer’s treatment.
  • Intellectual Ventures v. Veritas Technologies Corp. Successfully defended judgments concerning two software patents in appeal before the Federal Circuit.
  • Lugus IP LLC v. Volvo Car Corp. Represented Volvo before the Federal Circuit and successfully defended summary judgment of noninfringement in case concerning retractable child safety seats.
  • In re ThermoLife International, LLC. Represented and argued on behalf of ThermoLife in Federal Circuit appeal challenging PTAB determination of invalidity of life-sciences patent in ex parte appeal.
  • Qualtrics LLC v. OpinionLab Inc. Represented Qualtrics in Federal Circuit appeal concerning PTAB determination of validity for online advertising patent in inter partes review. Successfully settled.
  • Realtime Data LLC v. Veritas Technologies Corp. Represented and argued on behalf of Veritas in multiple Federal Circuit appeals from IPRs concerning data compression technology.
  • ThermoLife International, LLC. v. GNC Corp. Represented and argued on behalf of ThermoLife in Federal Circuit appeals challenging award of attorney fees.
  • Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, et al. Represented West-Ward before the Federal Circuit in appeal of infringement judgment after bench trial concerning multi-million dollar schizophrenia drug.
  • Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Camber Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. Represented Roxane in several appeals on calcium acetate.
  • Represented amicus curiae in Federal Circuit appeal concerning the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
Representative Advisory Matters:
  • Advised industry-leading Fortune 500 company on IP risk mitigation and due diligence.
  • Advised rapidly-expanding technology startup on IP portfolio management, including prosecution strategy, licensing, and potential patent valuation.
  • Advised small-cap life-sciences company on IP prosecution and litigation strategy, including before the PTO, district courts, and the Federal Circuit.
Federal Circuit Pro Bono Matters:
  • Piccolo v. MSPB. Appointed after Federal Circuit’s request and won jurisdictional reversal for service-disabled veteran law enforcement whistleblower removed from office.
  • Baude vs. United States Piccolo v. MSPB. Appointed after Federal Circuit’s request and won reversal of Court of Federal Claims decision for Air Force officer challenging continuation-in-service decision.
  • Johnson v. OPM. Represented federal employee disability applicant in Federal Circuit appeal and obtained unprecedented reversal on the merits prior to completion of briefing and oral argument.
  • Musselman v. U.S. Army. Appointed after Federal Circuit’s request and represented veteran in appeal seeking en banc action to overturn 30-year-old precedent regarding availability of equitable tolling. Also led efforts seeking certiorari on the same issue.
  • Cleaton v. DOJ. Represented federal law enforcement officer in Federal Circuit appeal and petition for certiorari challenging automatic removal from office based on meaning of “conviction.”

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham

Thought Leadership

"Induced and Contributory Infringement Claims Before the International Trade Commission," 23 337 REPORTER 79 (2007)

Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.