Skip to Content

Gabriel Hedrick

Senior Counsel
Overview

Gabriel Hedrick is a civil litigator with a background in complex corporate transactional matters, including intellectual property litigation. Mr. Hedrick has represented various multi-national companies and individuals in a wide variety of legal disputes involving issues of, among other things, intellectual property litigation in Federal and State court and before the International Trade Commission, intellectual property licensing, corporate transactions, partnership and shareholder disputes, and contract disputes.

 Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Bar Admissions

  • California

Education

  • J.D., University of San Diego School of Law, International Law, 2002
  • B.A., University of Colorado, Economics, 1996
Experience

Representative Experience

  • Anza Technology integrated circuit (“IC”) bonding litigation, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, representing plaintiff in multiple ongoing patent infringement cases involving IC chip bonding technology
  • e.Digital Corporation Nunchi litigation, United States District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts of California, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, representing plaintiff in multiple ongoing patent infringement cases and inter partes review proceedings involving “Internet of Things” or “IoT” technology
  • e.Digital Corporation Flash-R litigation, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, representing plaintiff in dozens of patent infringement cases and related inter partes review proceedings involving flash memory technology, resulting in favorable settlements for the Plaintiff
  • Overland Storage, Inc. v. BDT AG, et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of California, representing six defendants in a patent infringement case involving automated storage devices, resulting in favorable settlements for all defendants after successful trial before the International Trade Commission and successful inter partes review before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • Certain Automated Media Library Devices, U.S. International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-746, representing five respondents in a Section 337 investigation involving automated data storage devices, resulting in a complete victory after trial and appeal for the firm’s client
  • Certain DVD Players and Recorders and Certain Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-603, obtained favorable settlement for multiple respondents in Section 337 Investigation involving patented DVD player and DVD recorder technology
  • MH Systems, Inc. v. McNulty, United States District Court for the Central District of California, representing plaintiff in patent infringement cases involving ballast water treatment technology, including successfully reviving case from dismissal due to negligent conduct of prior counsel
  • Technology Licensing Company, Inc. v. jWIN Electronics Corporation, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:08-cv-3802, obtained favorable settlement for defendant in patent infringement litigation involving a system and method of making and/or viewing DVDs
  • Technology Licensing Company, Inc. v. Memcorp, Inc., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 06-cv-7110, obtained favorable settlement for Defendant in patent infringement litigation involving a system and method of making and/or viewing DVDs
  • Those Characters From Cleveland, Inc. v. The Singing Machine Company, Inc. State of Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Case No. CV09-692823, obtained favorable settlement for Defendant in dispute over copyright/trademark license agreement
  • CN Capital, Inc. v. CalAmp Corp., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, Case No. CIV243567, obtained favorable settlement for defendants and cross-complainants arising from dispute over an asset purchase agreement
  • Orient Power Hi-Fi Manufacturing Limited v. Peavey Electronics Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2007-66460, obtained favorable settlement for Hong Kong manufacturer/supplier plaintiff in dispute over approximately $1 million  in unpaid invoices
  • Surround the Sound Media Corp. v. International Disc Manufacturer, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. SC94612, obtained favorable settlement for defendant and cross-complainant DVD disc manufacturer in contract dispute
  • Koninklijke Philips Electronics, et al. v. International Disc Manufacturer, et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. CV06-2468, obtained favorable settlement for defendants in dispute over patent license royalties
  • The Singing Machine Company, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:10-cv-4536, obtained favorable settlement for plaintiff in trademark and copyright licensing dispute related to the “Bratz” line of children’s toys
  • Chan, et al. v. Lin, et al., Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC401139, obtained multi-million dollar settlement for Hong Kong based plaintiffs in complex partnership dispute and shareholder derivative action against approximately twenty corporate and individual defendants
  • Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Starlight International Holdings, Ltd., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, obtained favorable settlement for Hong Kong based defendant in case involving alleged underpayment of royalties on a license agreement
  • Starlite Consumer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Petters Consumer Brands LLC, International Center for Dispute Resolution Case No. 50 117 T 00129 08, representing Claimant in arbitration involving breach of contract claim based on alleged failure to pay over $1 million in past due invoice
News & Videos