Bruce Yen

Partner, Silicon Valley



Bruce Yen is a member of the Firm's Intellectual Property group. Based out of the Palo Alto Office, Bruce's practice focuses on patent litigation (both offensive and defensive) and advising clients on intellectual property matters across a wide range of technologies, including multimedia and content distribution systems, advertising platforms, navigation systems, cybersecurity, telecommunications, and smartphone hardware component and software systems.

Prior to practicing law, Bruce was a signal integrity engineer at a large multinational semiconductor company, where he worked on high-speed interfaces for integrated circuits in flash memory products.

Bars and Courts
US District Court for the Central District of California
US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
US District Court for the Northern District of California
US District Court for the Southern District of California
Santa Clara University School of Law
Portland State University


University of California, San Diego




Representative matters:

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Trend Micro Incorporated et al., (D. Del.): represented Trend Micro in a patent infringement suit filed in the District of Delaware against Trend Micro and three other defendants. The suit concerned the alleged infringement of four IV patents that purportedly relate to security software. After oral argument, the Court issued an Order granting Trend Micro's Motion for Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 which invalidated the two remaining patents asserted against Trend Micro by IV. This ruling vacated the upcoming trial and was a major victory for Trend Micro as IV was seeking $100M+ in damages. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order and IV's petition for rehearing en banc was denied.*

Palo Alto Research Center Inc. v. Snap Inc. (C.D. Cal.): representing Snap Inc. in a multi-patent litigation matter. Plaintiff filed suit against two other significant entities on overlapping patents. Successfully obtained an early victory invalidating one of the three of the asserted patents at the Rule 12 stage on Section 101 subject matter eligibility. The Court then granted Snap's motion to stay pending IPR on the two surviving patents, even prior to the IPRs being instituted.*

HTC Corp. et al. v. Innovation Sciences, LLC (E.D. Tex.) (E.D. Va.) and Certain Wireless Communications Devices and Related Components Thereof (ITC): represented HTC in a multi-forum, multi-patent dispute involving three district court actions and one ITC investigation relating to various aspects of handset technology. Successfully secured a global settlement on behalf of HTC relating to all existing litigation matters with Complaint/Plaintiff Virginia Innovation Sciences, and successfully developed evidence of prior art system that was used at trial by co-defendant to invalidate all asserted patents.*

Bloom Energy Corp. v. Plansee SE, et al. (E.D. Tex) – representing Bloom Energy in a complex international dispute with U.S. district court proceedings relating to no trade secret misappropriation, no patent infringement, unfair competition, tortious interference, RICO, Sherman Antitrust and claim for correction of inventorsip.*

Top Victory Investment v. DivX LLC (Ca. Superior Court, San Diego) –representing DivX in a matter relating to breach of contract, unfair competition and related torts, and injunctive relief.*

DivX LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) – representing DivX in a breach of contract, tortious interference, fraud, misappropriation of Trade Secrets, RICO and contributory trademark infringement matter against MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek Singapore Pte. Ltd. The case resolved favorably for DivX before the initial case management conference was held.*

3G Licensing, S.A. et al v. HTC Corporation, et al. (Del.) – representing HTC Corporation and HTC America in a multi-patent action relating to standard essential telecommunication technology.*

*Matters prior to joining White & Case