Robert G. Litts

Robert Litts is the managing attorney at Candescent Law Group. Robert is a trial and appellate attorney, and a registered patent attorney, with over two decades of experience in Silicon Valley representing high-technology companies and inventors. He typically handles smaller matters for Candescent Law Group by himself. For larger matters, he works with a team of lawyers, all of whom have senior-level experience at top national or Silicon Valley IP law firms.

Robert's practice focuses on intellectual property, antitrust, and complex commercial matters, typically involving advanced computer-related technologies.

Robert represents clients in matters before federal district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and California state courts. He also handles appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), where he has briefed and presented oral argument in patent-related matters. He has submitted and opposed petitions for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on patent issues. He also practices in trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where he has lead counsel experience representing clients in inter partes review proceedings.

Robert also prosecutes domestic and international patent applications in the electrical, mechanical, and software arts. He has deep knowledge of the patent-eligibility of software and other computer-implemented inventions, having litigated the issue at the trial and appellate levels, including at the CAFC and the United States Supreme Court. Consequently, he can draft strong patent claims that have the highest possible chance of surviving a patent-eligibility challenge. Patent prosecution clients have included Apple Inc., Intel Corporation, Applied Materials, Inc., Sony Electronics Inc., and numerous start-ups and individual inventors.

  • J.D., William and Mary School of Law
  • B.S.M.E., Pennsylvania State University

  • State Bar of California
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States District Court, Northern District of California
  • United States District Court, Southern District of California
  • United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
  • United States District Court, Northern District of Texas
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office

  • Micron Technology, Inc. v. United Microelectronics Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-06932 (N.D. Cal.), represented defendant in trade secret case involving DRAM design and fabrication.
  • Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. UMC Group (USA), No. 3:22-mc-80224 (N.D. Cal.), represented respondent in discovery dispute arising from underlying patent infringement case involving semiconductor fabrication.
  • Yanbin Yu, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-811 (S. Ct.), represented petitioners in petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review judgment of Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in patent infringement case involving digital camera design and digital image processing.
  • Yanbin Yu, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 20-1760 (Fed. Cir.), represented appellants in appeal from judgment of district court in patent infringement case involving digital camera design and digital image processing.
  • Yanbin Yu, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:18-cv-06181 (N.D. Cal.), represented plaintiffs in patent infringement case involving digital camera design and digital image processing.
  • Apple Inc., et al. v. Yanbin Yu, et al., No. IPR2019-01258 (PTAB), represented patent owners in inter partes review proceeding defending the validity of claims involving digital camera design and digital image processing.
  • Ipsilium LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No.3:17-cv-07179 (N.D. Cal.), represented plaintiff in patent infringement case involving ultra-low latency networking technology.
  • Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., No. 18-1697 (Fed. Cir.), represented appellant in appeal from judgment of district court in patent infringement case involving the delivery of targeted media over a network.
  • Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00710 (E.D. Va.), represented plaintiff in patent infringement case involving the delivery of targeted media over a network.
  • WiAV Solutions, LLC v. Motorola, Inc., et al., No. 3:09-cv-00447 (E.D. Va.), represented plaintiff in patent infringement case involving speech coding and wireless communications.
  • SPH America, LLC v. Acer, Inc., et al., No. 3:09-cv-02535 (S.D. Cal.), represented plaintiff in patent infringement case involving 3G wireless telecommunications technology.
  • SPH America, LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 3:10-cv-00404 (S.D. Cal.), represented plaintiff in patent infringement case involving power saving and voice command features in handheld devices.
  • Shum v. Intel Corp., et al., No. C 02-3262 (N.D. Cal.), represented plaintiff in patent inventorship, fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract case involving optoelectronic packaging.
  • Alpha and Omega Semiconductor, Inc., et al. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Corp., No. C 07-2638 JSW (N.D. Cal.), represented defendant and counterclaimant in patent infringement case involving power semiconductor devices.
  • Technology Properties, Ltd. v. Fujitsu Ltd., et al., No. 2-05CV-00494 (E.D. Tex.), represented plaintiff in patent infringement case involving microprocessor design.
  • MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., et al., No. 2-04CV-00120 (E.D. Tex.), represented plaintiff in patent infringement case involving microprocessor design.
  • International Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., No. C 00-6756 (C.D. Cal.), represented defendant in patent infringement case involving power semiconductor devices.
  • Toshiba Corp. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., No. C 05-4100 (N.D. Cal.), represented defendant in patent infringement case involving DRAM and NAND flash memory technology.
  • Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Carsem (M) Sdn. Bhd., No. 337-TA-501 (ITC), represented defendant in patent infringement case involving semiconductor packaging.
  • KLA-Tencor Corp. v. Tokyo Seimitsu Co., Ltd., et al., No. C 01-2489 (N.D. Cal.), represented plaintiff and counter-defendant in patent infringement case involving semiconductor wafer inspection technology.