Wiley Rein LLP

Brian H. Pandya
Practice Areas
  • J.D., cum laude, University of Michigan Law School
  • B.S., Mechanical Engineering, with honors and high distinction, The Pennsylvania State University
Law Journals
  • Articles Editor, Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review
Law Clerk for the Honorable Leonard Davis, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (2005)
Bar & Court Admissions
  • District of Columbia Bar
  • Virginia Bar
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Ninth and Federal Circuits
  • U.S. District Courts for the District of Columbia, Eastern District of Texas and Eastern District of Virginia
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals
  • Supreme Court of Virginia

Brian H. Pandya


202.719.7457  |  bpandya@wileyrein.com

Mr. Pandya is a trial attorney who focuses on patent litigation and counseling high-technology companies facing legal threats.  He has managed major litigations, from pre-filing through appeal, and enjoys working with clients to formulate legal strategies that advance their business objectives. Mr. Pandya has represented clients in every major patent litigation venue, including the Federal Circuit, district courts in Virginia, Texas, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, California, New York, and Utah, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), as well as in private arbitrations.  He also has experience assisting clients in drafting and negotiating license agreements and advising companies facing patent litigation threats.


  • Litigates high-stakes cases involving a wide variety of technologies, from telecommunications software, GPS devices, semiconductors, and financial services, to pharmaceutical formulations, monoclonal antibodies, and genotyping assays.
  • Represented Ireland’s largest privately-owned software company in a multi-patent lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia rocket docket by a large Israeli software company. Oversaw and managed the litigation from the answer to appeal, worked with business executives and senior technical staff to develop a proactive litigation strategy to counter the infringement allegations, and authored Federal Circuit and summary judgment briefs.
  • Invalidating a patent involving touchscreen keyboards that was widely licensed across multiple industries. First-chaired claim construction hearing and all depositions of inventors and expert witnesses.
  • Drafted and filed, on behalf of a major U.S. bank, the first ever Covered Business Method (CBM) Review filed at the PTAB by a financial institution. The PTAB found the patent-at-issue unpatentable under Section 101.  
  • Representing multiple banks in patent infringement lawsuits involving online banking, mobile banking apps, and remote deposit capture technologies. In one recent case, Mr. Pandya argued for summary judgment of invalidity and at Markman hearing on behalf of all defendants in the case (over one dozen national banks).    
  • Authoring Supreme Court amicus briefs at the certiorari and merits stages.  Mr. Pandya’s amicus briefs, discussing both the real-world cost of patent litigation and historical standards of appellate review, submitted in Highmark v. Allcare on behalf of the nation’s largest health insurance provider, drew praise and were cited by multiple business and legal media outlets.   
  • Representing major pharmaceutical companies in multiple Hatch-Waxman Act litigations involving a variety of products, including cyclobenzaprine HCl, omeprazole, erlotinib, dutasteride, and doxycycline hyclate. Member of teams that obtained trial verdicts of non-infringement and obviousness.
  • Authoring Federal Circuit briefs on numerous issues, including patent infringement, damages, attorney’s fees, and antitrust liability.
  • Counseling a regulated public utility on data rights and data retention issues and pre-litigation best practices. 
  • Prosecuting multiple patent applications and conducting IP due diligence for a multi-billion dollar medical device company and developed IP training and best practices modules for a leading government contractor.
  • Extensive pro bono practice, including filing a habeas corpus petition in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, representing disabled military veterans, and assisting Libyan graduate students seeking political asylum from the Gadhafi regime.


  • American Bar Association (ABA), Section of Intellectual Property Law, Patent Litigation Committee.
    • Co-Chair, Section 101 Subcommittee (2008-2012).
    • Co-Chair, NPE Litigation Subcommittee (2012-2013).
  • Eastern District of Texas Bar Association, Bench and Bar Conference Planning Committee (2011-Present).
  • Federal Bar Association (FBA), Northern Virginia Chapter (2013-Present).
  • Virginia Bar Association (VBA), Membership Committee (2014-Present).


  • Named one of DC's "Rising Stars" for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine (2014).
  • Pro Bono Advocacy Award, Federal Circuit Bar Association (2011, 2012).




  • Recovery of Attorney Fees

    Brian H. Pandya, Moderator
    Overview of Event

    Two decisions - Highmark v. Allcare and Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness - have given trial courts more discretion to award attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and made it more difficult for reviewing courts to disturb a trial court's discretion. Lower courts are also broadening recovery opportunities.

    Also discussed during this first portion of the conference will be Innovative Biometric Technology, LLC v. Toshiba (recovery under Rule 41(a)(2), 35 U.S.C. § 285, Rule 56 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927); Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd. (third-party Netflix recovers for bad faith subpoena enforcement under Rule 45(d)(1)); Medtrica Solutions Ltd. v. Cyagnus Medical LLC (on reconsideration, district court reversed its pre-Highmark denial of attorney fees in light of lower threshold set by Supreme Court); Lee v. Mike's Novelties, Inc. (in a post-Highmark ruling district could would not award attorney's fees despite litigation misconduct and willful infringement).

    Impact of the Supreme Court on Patent Enforcement
    March 12, 2015 | San Francisco, CA | More Information




Top of the Page