Domingo Manuel LLagostera | Blank Rome LLP

Biography

CO-CHAIR, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP

Domingo M. LLagostera is the Chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation group at Blank Rome and a lead trial lawyer who concentrates his practice on patent and trade secret litigation from filing through appeal. Using his educational background in biochemistry and pharmaceuticals, and experience in R&D, Domingo brings a practical and unique perspective to life science matters. His technical background also allows Domingo to demonstrate equal aptitude and experience helping judges and juries understand complex oil and gas, software and hardware, and mechanical technologies. Domingo has effectively represented all of these technology areas in litigation, including in several trials.

First and foremost, Domingo has a passion for both enforcing and defending company innovations. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants through all phases of patent and trade secret litigation in federal court from coast to coast. Domingo develops close and trusted relationships with his clients, providing business advice, and cost-effective strategic solutions related to all things IP. He also counsels clients in pre-suit advocacy and early resolution strategies so that his clients avoid the high costs of litigation, including using defensive strategies such as inter partes review before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

In addition to adversarial work, Domingo is also active in a wide range of intellectual property investigative and transactional work, including: IP consulting, IP opinions, IP landscape evaluations, pre-suit competitor investigations, IP transactions, and patent prosecution.

A prior life on the road as a rock musician has given Domingo great insight and empathy for those who create and develop what is new and unique. He is passionate about protecting some of the most valuable company assets, intellectual property.

Related Services

Related Industries

Experience

Trial counsel in patent infringement action involving home office software applications (N.D. Cal.). Jury verdict finding in favor of client.
Trial counsel in patent infringement action involving motorized winch technology (S.D. N.Y.). Case is pending appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Represented Refined Technologies Inc. as patentee in two IPR petitions filed by United Laboratories. Both IPR petitions were denied.
Counsel in trade secret action involving well steering technology. (S.D. Tex.). Case settled favorably for client.
Counsel in patent infringement action involving email technology. (W.D. Tex.). Case settled early and in favor of client when plaintiff was faced with a case-dispositive motion.
Counsel in patent infringement litigation involving top drive products (S.D. Tex.). During trial, Court dismissed the case with prejudice.
Counsel in patent infringement litigation involving drill pipe oscillation technology. (E.D. Tex.). Case settled favorably for client on the eve of trial.
Counsel in NPE patent infringement action filed against multiple large businesses in email storage technologies. (W.D. Tex.). Case settled favorably for client.
Counsel in patent infringement actions involving data storage technologies. (N.D. Cal.).
Case settled favorably for client.
Counsel in NPE patent infringement action involving telecommunications technology. (N.D. Ill.). Case settled favorably for client.
Counsel in patent infringement action involving optical disk technologies. (S.D. N.Y.).
Client won case-dispositive summary judgment.
Counsel in patent infringement arbitration involving medical device technology (Colorado). Arbitration panel rendered non-infringement decision for client.
Counsel in patent infringement action involving medical lasers. (C.D. Cal.). Case settled favorably for client.
Counsel in inventorship action involving superconducting technology. (S.D. Tex.). Court granted client’s motion to dismiss based on laches and equitable estoppel.
Counsel in war crimes action against Somali general. (E.D. Va.). Trial court entered a $20 million verdict against the general.