Two Embarcadero Center Suite 1900, San Francisco, CA USA 94111
1801 Century Park East Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA USA 90067
Rishi Gupta is an intellectual property litigator who focuses his practice on patent, trade secret, trademark, copyright, and other complex business disputes. In addition, Rishi counsels clients on transactional matters relating to intellectual property ownership and licensing agreements. He represents companies ranging from Fortune 500 to early-stage start-ups that span a variety of industries, including technology, entertainment, semiconductors, medical devices, and consumer goods. Rishi has handled cases throughout the litigation process, including pre-litigation strategy, preliminary injunctions and motions to dismiss, claim construction, summary judgment, through trial and post-trial motions.
Notably, Rishi was a member of the trial team representing a leading semiconductor corporation, ASML US Inc., in securing an $854+ million judgment for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims. The case was ranked No. 3 overall and No. 1 intellectual property verdict in the nation in 2018 by the National Law Journal. Most recently, Rishi was a member of the trial team representing GREE, Inc. in a series of patent infringement suits against Supercell, resulting in over $100 million jury verdicts in GREE’s favor following two jury trials in 2020 and 2021.
Prior to joining the firm, Rishi worked as an associate in the San Francisco, California office of an international law firm where he focused his practice on complex commercial disputes involving trademark and trade dress infringement, copyright infringement, trade secrets, and patent infringement as well as intellectual property prosecution and enforcement. Rishi also has experience in antitrust and other complex business disputes.
While attending law school, Rishi served as Editor in Chief of the Hastings International and Comparative Law Review.
Rishi was recognized as a Northern California "Rising Star" in 2021 and 2022 for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine.
Rishi is conversational in Hindi and Gujarati.
GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy – Represented GREE, Inc., a Japanese gaming and internet media company in a large-scale patent battle with Supercell, a Finnish mobile game development company. Kilpatrick Townsend launched suits involving more than 20 patents against Supercell. The case led to a complex series of litigations in district court resulting in more than $100 million in jury verdicts in favor of GREE, as well as at the PTAB and before the Federal Circuit. The Kilpatrick Townsend team obtained a jury verdict for GREE in the Eastern District of Texas of willful infringement, asserting five patents and an award of at least $8.5 million for damages against Supercell in September 2020, and a second jury verdict of willful infringement in favor of GREE and an award of at least $92 million in damages in May 2021.
ASML US, Inc. v. XTAL, Inc. – Represented ASML US, Inc. in obtaining an $854+ million judgment for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims. Rishi was a member of the trial team and helped prepare the trial brief, pre-trial motions, examinations of key fact and expert witnesses, and the opening and closing arguments. This case was ranked No. 3 overall and No. 1 intellectual property verdict in the nation in 2018 by the National Law Journal.
Defending leading Fortune 100 technology company in multiple patent infringement suits venued in the Western District of Texas and the Northern District of California.
Representing Motorola in patent litigation brought in the Northern District of California related to optical lens technology.
Representing public FinTech company in a founders dispute venued in California.
Representing Hitachi Vantara on patent infringement matters venued in Colorado and Texas.
Represented Slate Digital, an early-stage social media company in the sports and entertainment industry, in a founders dispute venued in the Southern District of New York.
Representing Slate Digital, in corporate transactions and intellectual property protection.
Representing Swedish medical device company in patent infringement and business dispute actions venued in the Southern District of New York.
Represented Swedish medical device company in mediation resulting from a complex M&A dispute. The case settled on favorable terms.
Represented Sony in a trademark action filed in the Northern District of California based on infringement of its famous trademark associated with its top-selling gaming console. The case settled on favorable terms.
Represented large semiconductor corporation in a misappropriation of trade secret action brought against it. The case was dismissed amid dispositive motion practice.
Represented gaming company in trademark action filed in the Southern District of California regarding a mark associated with its gaming headset.
Represented well-known standardized test provider in copyright, trademark, and antitrust litigation filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Served as counsel for the co-founders of the Drone Racing League in a founders dispute regarding breach of contract claims.
Insights View All
University of California, Hastings College of the Law J.D. (2016) cum laude, CALI Award, Witkin Award
University of California, Santa Barbara B.A. (2013) English
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
San Francisco Bar Association, Member
Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Northern California Chapter, Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.