We have not found any cost information for this lawyer
Rich Vasquez is currently lead counsel for technology companies in several global patent infringement cases in the U.S. federal courts. He represents and counsels technology and non-technology clients on patent and complex litigation matters and strategic issues relating to litigation avoidance. He manages all phases of dispute avoidance and resolution from preventive counseling to mediation, arbitration, trials, and appeals. In 2006, Rich was recognized by the East Bay Business Times among 14 attorneys named Top Attorneys in the Region and was the only one in Business & Technology Litigation. He has been selected a fellow in the Litigation Counsel of America.
3
Practice Areas
27 years
37 years | 50 cases
40 years | 100 cases
We have not found any cost information for this lawyer
Quickly connect with top attorneys through our legal directory to get help with your legal issue.
Chat with a live agent who can match you with the right attorney for your legal needs.
Chat withState: California
Acquired: 1986
No misconduct found
3685 Mt Diablo Blvd Ste 300, Lafayette, CA, 94549
Showing 1 - 3 of 3 client reviews from Avvo
Posted by Lane | October 15, 2009
Rich Vasquez has represented my Company and our Parent Company for many years. Cases he worked for us included lawsuits to collect damages, to defend us against claims, employment issues, reviewing contracts and agreements for us, etc. But mostly, Rich has defended us against intellectual property...
Posted by Thomas | October 14, 2009
I have worked with Rich Vasquez and his firm, Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren, on several complex and substantial IP disputes. I have found all of the attorneys at VBL to be highly competent and their services to be quite reasonable in cost. Consistently, I felt that we were getting practical, real-worl...
Posted by Jack Weaver | October 9, 2009
I first worked with Rich Vasquez in 1997, over 12 years ago. He has handled a number of difficult international product liability and IP cases for me and my company. He has been able to adapt his style to the changing requirements of a fast moving technical industry. I have found the Rich's ability h...
"I endorse this lawyer's work. I've worked with Rich a number of times on patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas. He is an outstanding strategist and advocate, and probably the best I've seen at tailoring the representation to the particular needs of the client."
Patent infringement lawyer
2018
Northern California Super Lawyer, Super Lawyers Magazine
2017
Northern California Super Lawyer, SuperLawyers
2016
Northern California Super Lawyer, SuperLawyers
2015
Northern California SuperLawyer, Super Lawyers
2014
Northern California SuperLawyer, SuperLawyers
2013
Northern California SuperLawyers List, SuperLawyers
2009
Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America
2008
Superlawyer, Law & Politics Magazine National Corporate Counsel Ed.
2007
Superlawer, Law & Politics Magazine
2006
East Bay Business Times, Top East Bay Area Lawyer, Technology Industry
2006
Superlawer, Law & Politics Magazine
2005
Superlawer, Law & Politics Magazine
2004
Superlawer, Law & Politics Magazine
2008 - Present
Managing Partner, Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren
1989 - 2008
Shareholder, Morgan Miller Blair
1986 - 1989
Associate, Bartko Welsh Tarrant & Miller
2009 - 2014
Litigation Counsel of AmericaFellow
Court struck a jury verdict for $13.7M, holding damages could not exceed $2.4M, before Federal Circuit Court of Appeal invalidated patent and reversed district court for failing to grant JMOL.
Settled on eve of trial, after court limited damages expert testimony.
Court refused to award any relief, or an injunction after trial. Judgement on appeal by plaintiff, and defendant.
Case dismissed with prejudice with zero payment from client after more than one year of defense.
Settled after court granted two motions to dismiss under rule 12b6.
Judgement of non-infringement for client, affirmed on appeal.
Case settled January 2017.
Case settled January 16, 2017, the day before a scheduled jury trial.
Judgment of non-infringement in client's favor
Case settled. Terms Confidential.
Case settled after favorable Markman ruling just before jury trial. Terms confidential.
Settled favorably to SMC after we initiated discovery and challenged the infringement case.
Case settled after client won more than a dozen pre-trial motions, immediately before trial.
Settled
Settled. Terms confidential.
Settled month before trial. Terms confidential.
Settled Terms Confidential
Settlement on day before case went to jury for small fraction of exposure.
Dismissal affirmed on appeal before 9th Circuit CA
Settled after Summary Judgement Filed
Settlement during trial.
Obtained reduction of $13.7M jury verdict to $2.37M on motion for new trial, defeated motion for treble damages.
Trial set for December 6, 2010
1986
JD - Juris Doctor
1982
Bachelor of Arts
2014
Recent U.S. Patent Litigation Trends
2012
2012
2007
2006
2006
2005
English