Alexander E. Gasser
Senior Associate
Bar Membership Other Than Virginia
Tel (703) 412-6006

Alexander E. Gasser

Senior Associate

ALEXANDER (ALEX) E. GASSER is an attorney in the firm’s Litigation, ITC Litigation and Patent Interferences practice groups. His litigation experience spans several industries, including pharmaceuticals, various mechanical arts, and electrical devices. Mr. Gasser has litigated in several district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  As a patent interference attorney, he also has assisted in complex patent interference proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Prior to joining Oblon, Spivak, Mr. Gasser spent several years at a general litigation firm, where he gained first- and second-chair jury trial experience and first-chair summary judgment hearing experience. He now builds on this experience in trial and at patent claim interpretation hearings for his clients at Oblon, Spivak. 

While attending law school Mr. Gasser served as a judicial extern for the Honorable John L. Coffey of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Mr. Gasser lived in Switzerland, Germany and Belgium for 18 years and is fluent in German.

Representative Matters

Defending Toshiba Corp. and its subsidiaries in an action concerning lithography methods used in conjunction with liquid crystal display (LCD) panels. Anvik v. AFPD (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (ongoing).

Serving as counsel for ophthalmic pharmaceutical patent owners Kyorin, Senju and their exclusive licensee Allergan against a generic manufacturer challenging the patent for one of the 10 most popular ophthalmic drugs on the market. Kyorin Pharmaceuticals, et al. v. Apotex, Inc. (D. Del. 2008) (ongoing).

Counseled Toyota during licensing negotiations, and subsequently during Toyota’s first offensive litigation in the United States against accused infringer Hyundai, which resulted in a successful settlement against Hyundai. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Hyundai Motor Co. (C.D. Cal. 2005 – 2007).

Defended LCD manufacturer Optrex against a patentee that sued the entire LCD industry. The case resulted in settlement after lengthy litigation. Optrex America, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc. (D. Del. 2004 – 2009).

Assisted Spain-based Moehs Iberica in obtaining dismissal of a pharmaceutical litigation filed by Teva, after Teva was persuaded that Moehs did not infringe the patent at issue. Teva Pharm. Ind., Ltd. v. Moehs Iberica, S.A., (D.N.J. 2008).

Helped coordinate and provide counsel for Citizen in a Light Emitting Diode (LED) patent matter that involved litigation and invalidation proceedings in Japan, Germany, and the United States. Osram GMBH and Osram Opto Semiconductor GMBH v. Citizen Electric Co., Ltd., (D. Del. 2004 – 2007).

Helped advise Yeda Research and Development and its licensee to overcome an interference proceeding initiated by Enzo, which matured into a hybrid appeal before a district court. Enzo Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., (USPTO and E.D. Va. 2005 – 2006).

Advised Bayer during interference and prosecution proceedings to expand Bayer’s patent portfolio on hetrocyclic insecticides. Bayer AG v. Norvartis Crop Protection, Inc., (USPTO 2000 – 2002).

Ogma Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices
Wednesday, June 15, 2011

On June 13, 2011, Ogma, LLC of Longview, Texas (“Ogma”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

Cypress Semiconductor Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Static Random Access Memories
Wednesday, June 15, 2011

On June 10, 2011, Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress”) of San Jose, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date in Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems (337-TA-775)
Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Further to our June 7, 2011 post, on June 9, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 2:...

ITC Issues Public Version Of Opinion Reversing Remand Initial Determination And Finding No Violation In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)
Friday, June 10, 2011

Further to our March 9, 2011 post, on June 3, 2011, the International Trade Commission issued the public version of its ...

ALJ Rogers Denies Complainant’s Motion To Compel Discovery in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (337-TA-755)
Friday, June 03, 2011

On June 2, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 16 in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (Inv. No. 337-TA-755).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Remy International, Inc.’s (“Remy”) motion to compel Respondent Wetherill...

ALJ Rogers Rules on Motions Regarding Discovery, Summary Determination, and Expert Reports In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-735)
Tuesday, May 31, 2011

On May 25, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr.

MOSAID Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Equipment for Communications Networks
Friday, May 20, 2011

On May 18, 2011, MOSAID Technologies Inc. of Ottawa, Canada (“MOSAID”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

Lutron Electronics Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Lighting Control Devices
Wednesday, May 18, 2011

On May 16, 2011, Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. (“Lutron”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motion to Supplement Notice Of Prior Art In Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (337-TA-721)
Friday, May 13, 2011

On May 10, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 48 (dated April 26, 2011) in Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-721), granting-in-part and denying-in-part Respondent Apple, Inc.’s (“...

Linex Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems
Tuesday, May 10, 2011

On May 6, 2011, Linex Technologies, Inc. of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida (“Linex”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

All Blogs