Breton Bocchieri
Top rated Intellectual Property Litigation attorney in Los Angeles, California
Bocchieri & Lachuk Intellectual Law Group PC
Practice Areas: Intellectual Property Litigation
Licensed in California since: 1985
Education: Franklin Pierce Law Center
Selected to Super Lawyers: 2004 - 2013, 2015 - 2024 Call today:
310-943-4734
Bocchieri & Lachuk Intellectual Law Group PC
1100 Glendon Ave15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024 Visit website
Details
Breton (“Bret”) Bocchieri is a well-known trial lawyer with extensive experience in patent and other
IP-related litigation, with many notable victories that have been reported in the national press, law school text books, television, the legal press and include awards of over one hundred million dollars.
Throughout his career, Bret has demonstrated creativity and leadership in establishing important legal precedents which have been the subject of numerous law review articles and over a dozen legal treatises.
Bret is also a well-regarded author on litigation strategy and tactics and his publications have been cited and discussed in many legal and business journals. His victories and their impact have been and continue to be featured in the national press and television news programs, including The new York Times and The Wall street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The Daily Journal, The Recorder, IP 360, Cnn Headline news, ABC, and many legal organizations. He has been named a California super Lawyer from 2000 on, IP star in Managing IP Magazine since its first issue in 2013 to the present, AV Rated by Martindale Hubbell from 1998 to the present and Trade secret Lawyer of the Year in California, 2019 Corporate International globe Awards.
Bocchieri & Lachuk, Intellectual Law group PC is a firm of highly experienced and seasoned litigators who have been partners and had leadership positions in large top tier national law firms and Fortune 200 companies. Their resumes reflect the decades of finely honed and laser-focused discipline that they bring to bear on each case.
Bocchieri & Lachuk specialize in high-stakes plaintiff’s litigation in patent, trade secrets, joint venture, trademark, breach of contract, antitrust and other complex business litigation. Their clients are businesses, inventors and entrepreneurs who have had their rights trampled upon and who are seeking aggressive and strategic representation. They are also able to obtain litigation funding in appropriate cases.
Practice areas
Intellectual Property Litigation- 100% Intellectual Property Litigation
First Admitted: 1985, California
Professional Webpage: https://bocchierilachuk.com/breton-a-bocchieri
Scholarly Lectures/Writings:
- Counterfeits and IP Implications: An Overview, Panelist, ITECH Law Association (December 2010)
- Practicing Law Institute, March 2004
- Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association, June 1, 2004
- Washington State Patent Law Association, October 1, 2004
- Washington State Patent Law Association, May 2005
- Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California and Loyola Law School, November 1, 2007
- Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California, June 2008
- How to Win Patent Infringement Jury Trials, with Dr. Gilbert Calvillo
- Markman Hearings—The Last ‘Trial’ Your Client May Ever See, with Michael Lachuk, Esq., Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California and Loyola Law School (November 2007)
- Present and Future Perspectives on Patent Litigation, Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California (June 2008)
- Drawing the Line: Successfully Avoiding Ethical Challenges Facing In-House Counsel in IP Litigation, AIPLA 2010 Mid-Winter Institute, La Quinta, California (January 2010)
- Patton on Patents – How General Patton Would Fight the Troll Wars: Offenses, Defenses, Pre- and Post-Litigation Techniques and Risk-Minimization Planning, State Bar of California, Intellectual Property Section (July 23, 2014)
- Patent Office Meets the West, Panelist, Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California (March 2011)
- Litigating Licensing Agreements: Potential Drafting Pitfalls, Panelist, Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California (February 2012)
- Current Developments at the Intersection of Antitrust and Patent Law, Panelist, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Antitrust and Unfair Business Practices Section (June 25, 2013)
- Co-Author, "Strategic Considerations for a Defendant in a Patent Enforcement Action," Sunnyvale Center for Innovation, Invention, and Ideas, Washington and the West Patent Seminar, January 1996
- Advisory Editor, New Matter, Official Publication of the State Bar of California Intellectual Property Law Section (1997-Present), Editor (1993-97)
- Stephen C. Yeazell, et al., "Civil Procedure" 4th Ed., p. 624, (1996) citing Refac Intl, Ltd. v. Hitachi, et al., 921 F.2d 1247, Fed. Cir., 1990
- "Patent Evolution: Case Law Suggests New Defense Strategies," Los Angeles Daily Journal, August 4, 1995
- "Discovery Proceedings in Federal Court" § 22.21 (3rd ed. 1995), citing Refac Intl, Ltd. v. Hitachi, et al., supra
- "Obtaining Attorney Fees in Intellectual Property Cases: Rule 11 and Other Sanctioning Mechanisms," IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1993
- Fred C. Zacharias, "Federalizing Legal Ethics," Texas Law Review, Vol. 73 (1994), citing Refac Intl, Ltd. v, Hitachi, et al., supra
- "The Reluctant Plaintiff: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Upholds Stiff Discovery Sanctions in Refac International Ltd. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al.," WESTLAW, Hot Topics, December, 1990
- Stephen C. Yeazell, "The Misunderstood Consequences of Modern Civil Process," Wisconsin Law Review (1994), citing Refac Intl, Ltd. v. Hitachi, et al., supra
- John Lerner, "Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors, The Journal of Law & Economics" (University of Chicago), Vol. 38, No. 2, 463, 470 n.20 (1993) citing Bocchieri, "Obtaining Attorney Fees in Intellectual Property Cases: Rule 11 and Other Sanctioning Mechanisms," IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1993
- "The Trap of Willful Patent Infringement: A Corporate Dilemma," IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1988
- Michael Paul Chu, "Note: An Antitrust Solution to the New Wave of Predatory Patent Infringement Litigation," William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 33 (1992), citing Refac Int'l Ltd. v. Hitachi, el al., supra
- Media Reference and Article - WIRED, “Dear Oracle: The Java APIs Are Not a Work of Art,” June 4, 2012
- Michael L. Keller and Kenneth J. Nunnenkamp, "Area Summary: Patent Law Developments in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit During 1990," American University Law Review, Vol. 40, p. 1157 (1991), citing Refac Intl, Ltd. v. Hitachi, et al., supra
- Media Reference and Article - IP Law360, “JPML Won’t Combine Plastic Molding Patent Cases,” April 20, 2010
- "Energy Products of Idaho Says Biofuel Patent Invalid", IP Law360, October 9, 2007
- Media Reference and Article - The Register, “Google’s ‘copied Java code’ disowned by Apache, Dis-Harmony from Oracle’s Android Suit” November 1, 2010
- Media Reference and Article - Bloomberg, “Alliant Energy Sued Over Biofuel Byproduct-Use Patent,” October 9, 2007
- Media Reference and Article - ABC Eyewitness News, “Magic Cards v. Magic Johnson, June Bug Enterprises” February 28, 2009
- Media Reference and Article - CNN Headline News, May 16, 2003, Re: “Qwest v. OneQwest”, 2003
- Media Reference and Article - Los Angeles Daily Journal, “Intellectual Property: Only Federal Circuit Can Consider Mandamus Petition—Relating to Prejudgment Orders in Patent Infringement Action,” December 1997
- Media Reference and Article - The Millennium Show, March 13, 2003, Re: “Qwest v. OneQwest”, 2003
- Media Reference and Article – The Recorder, “Thelen Targets L.A.’s Tech/IP Convergence,” June 15, 2006
- Media Reference and Article - Los Angeles Daily Journal, “Cyberpiracy Ruling Levels Heavy Damages,” December 2002
- Media Reference and Article – Los Angeles Daily Journal, “Bolstering Thelen Reid’s Intellectual Property Practice,” June 20, 2006, 2006
- Media Reference and Article - The Recorder, December 2002, “OneQwest Hit With $117M Sanction in Qwest Dispute”, 2002
- Media Reference and Article - CNBC & The Wall Street Business Journal, September 1999, “Pulling Back on High-Tech Reins”, 1999
- Media Reference and Article - Corporate Legal Times, July 1999, “Law Firms, Like Their Clients, Need to Adapt”, 1999
- Selected as Presenter of Patent Litigation Markman hearing reenactment, 33rd Annual Intellectual Property Institute of the Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California, November 2008
- Media Reference and Article - California Law Business, “Patent Medicine,” April 12, 1999
- "Present and Future Perspectives on Patent Litigation”
- Media Reference and Article - The Recorder, “When Strategic Alliance Leads to Courthouse,” September 9, 1998
- Co-Speaker, with Michael Lachuk, Esq., "Markman Hearings-The Last 'Trial' Your Client May Ever See"
- Co-Speaker, with Dr. Gilbert Calvillo, "How to Win Patent Infringement Jury Trials," Washington State Patent Law Association, May 2005
- Media Reference and Article - Mealey’s Litigation Report: Intellectual Property, “Federal Circuit Has Sole Jurisdiction Over Writs of Mandamus in Patent Cases,” January 5, 1998
- "Avoiding Pitfalls in Patent Infringement Litigation"
- "Intellectual Property: Only Federal Circuit Can Consider Mandamus Petition-Relating to Prejudgment Orders in Patent Infringement Action", Los Angeles Daily Journal, December 1997
- "Maximizing the Value of Your Intellectual Property"
- Media Reference and Article - Los Angeles Times, “Critics Take Aim at ‘Submarine Patent’ Amendments,” June 1, 1994
- Guest Lecturer, Trademark Law, University of California Law School, February 2004
- Media Reference and Article - New York Times, “Patents — Six Companies Win Trade Commission Judge’s Decision in an Infringement Complaint,” May 31, 1993
- "How to Stop Internet Piracy in Four Days and Win 117 Million Dollars: Everything You Wanted to Know About Napster, Grokster, Qwest v. OneQwest, Officer Liability, Web-Posted Injunctions, New Internet Torts, and Much More," Beverly Hills Bar Association, January 2004
- Media Reference and Article - EDN News, “Wait! Don’t Sign That Contract,” November 14, 1991
- Panelist, "Stop in The Name of Love Before I Sue: Hidden Dangers and Pitfalls In File Sharing," Beverly Hills Bar Association, October 2003
- Media Reference and Article - Electronic Engineering Times, “Editorial—Drawing the Line,” July 1, 1991
- "What To Do After the Win; Recovering Costs and Attorney's Fees After A Successful Intellectual Property Litigation," Colorado Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section, February, 2003
- Media Reference and Article - Orange County Business Journal, “Refac Must Pay for Patent Suits, Judge Rules,” June 24, 1991
- Media Reference and Article - The Wall Street Journal, “Law: Appeals Court Rule,” October 15, 1990
- Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Litigation, March, 2003
- Media Reference and Article - New York Times, “After Court Rebuke, Refac Hints at a Retreat on Suits,” October 13, 1990
- "Recent Developments in the Right of Publicity," Conflicts of Convergence Seminar, The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Law Section, January 16, 1997
- Media Reference and Article - Newsday (New York), “Financier Loses Patent Suit Against Calif. Companies,” October 12, 1990
- Kimberly A. Moore, et al., "Patent Litigation and Strategy" (3rd ed. 2008 p. 20, 2nd ed. 2003 p. 18, Teacher’s Manual p. 5), citing Refac Intl, Ltd. v. Hitachi, et al., 921 F.2d 1247, Fed. Cir, 1990
- Media Reference and Article - Los Angeles Times, “Refac Chastised as Judge Rejects LCD Patent Suit,” October 11, 1990
- "Inside the Minds: Conducting Markman Hearings In Patent Infringement Lawsuits—Leading Lawyers on Interpreting Claims, Developing Court Presentations, and Making a Strong Argument," Aspatore Books, (2007) citing Allure Home Creations Co. Inc. v. Zak Designs Inc.
- "When is Extrinsic Evidence Really 'Extrinsic?'" IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2008
- "Are You Experienced? Examining the Need for Specialized Ethics Rules in Patent Litigation," The Berkeley Electronic Press, Paper 196, 2004, citing "Obtaining Attorney Fees in Intellectual Property Cases: Rule 11 and Other Sanctioning Mechanisms," IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1993
- "The Impact of Festo, Its Progeny and Its Future," New Matter, Official Publication of the State Bar of California Intellectual Property Law Section (one of the country's largest intellectual property law journals), Vol. 26, No. 3 (Fall 2001/Winter 2002), correctly predicting the Supreme Court's reversal of the Festo decision
- Bender’s Federal Practice Forms, Rule 11, Vol. 2 (1998), citing Refac Intl, Ltd. v. Hitachi, et al., supra; Moore’s Federal Practice § 11.28, Vol. 2, No. 12 (3rd ed. 1998), citing Refac Int’l, Ltd. v. Hitachi, et al., supra
- Editor, New Matter, Official Publication of the State Bar of California Intellectual Property Law Section, 1993 - 1997
- Chisum, "Patents, A Treatise On The Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement" §20.03 [4][b], Vol. 7, No. 83 (1998), citing Bocchieri, "The Trap of Willful Patent Infringement: A Corporate Dilemma," IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 29, No. 2 (1988)
- Advisory Editor (1997-present); "Facing the International Trade Commission: What to Do When Your Client is Served With a Complaint," Los Angeles Lawyer, October, 1996
- Ari Dobner, "Comment: Litigation For Sale," University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 144,; p. 1529 (1996), citing Refac Intl, Ltd. v. Hitachi, et al., supra
Verdicts/Settlements (Case Results):
- Qwest Communications Int'l v. One Qwest, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25469
- Refac Int'l, Ltd. v. Hitachi, et al., 921 F.2d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
- Represented leading computer disk drive manufacturer in a patent infringement case filed with the International Trade Commission involving $10 billion in product sales.
- Represented Fortune 500 company in a complex copyright infringement case spanning 15 years of product sales.
- Led the defense on a case involving three pioneer patents covering liquid crystal display technology and obtained defense judgment of over two million dollars.
- Obtained first the “web posted” injunction in which the defendant was ordered to post an injunction on its website to notify and enjoin users of the defendant’s website from engaging in all future infringing activities.
- Established, for the first time, the level of prefiling investigation necessary in a patent infringement case.
- Represented debit card manufacturer in breach of endorsement case against internationally famous celebrity.
- Represented a Fortune 500 toy manufacturer in various patent infringement actions involving several billion dollars in product sales.
- Represented leading wireless telephone manufacturer in a breach of contract and trade secret case.
- Represented Kawasaki Motors and led the defense in the precedent-setting Refac Int’l, Ltd. v. Hitachi, et al., 921 F.2d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1990) one of the largest patent infringement cases ever filed, establishing that a plaintiff must provide detailed infringement claim charts early in discovery or suffer dismissal with prejudice and payment of attorney’s fees as a sanction. This case has been reported in the national press including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and various trade journals and legal treatises, and is one of the few patent cases to be featured in textbooks for general law courses throughout the country, including Patent Litigation and Strategy (2nd and 3rd editions), with accompanying teacher’s manual.
- Obtained a 117 million dollar judgment for trademark infringement and cybersquatting (Qwest Communications Int’l v. One Qwest, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25469 (W.D. Wa. Nov. 12, 2002)
- Obtained the first sanction of dismissal with prejudice in a Ninth Circuit intellectual property case for violation of a protective order.
- Established, for the first time, Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the Federal Circuit has exclusive writ of mandamus jurisdiction in patent infringement cases even as to supervisory matters involving non-patent issues.
- Represented plaintiff in a patent trade secret and breach of confidence case involving the first use of image transfer via the Internet.
- Represented the world’s largest application-specific C-MOS chip manufacturer in a patent infringement action filed in Japan involving a break-through transistor invention and more than $50 million in liability.
- Established new method of calculating damages for infringement occurring via the Internet by projecting a defendant’s revenue’s based on the number of Internet sign-ups.
- Won sanctions of dismissal and default with prejudice in three different reported intellectual property cases; these precedents have been used to curb abusive litigation practices in the intellectual property arena.
- Represented world’s largest manufacturer of specialty gas purifiers used in semiconductor fabrication in a patent infringement case.
- Obtained the first ruling of non-infringement in a patent infringement case as a discovery sanction pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Bar/Professional Activity:
- U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- ITechLaw Association
- Los Angeles County Bar Association
- State Bar of California; Executive Committee Member, 1996-1999
- Co-Chair, Los Angeles Century City Bar Association, Patents, Trademarks& Copyrights Section, 1992 - 1998
- U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Advisory Editor, New Matter, Official Publication of the State Bar of California Intellectual Property Law Section, 1997-Present, Editor 1993-1997
- U.S. District Courts for the Central, Northern, Eastern and Southern Districts of California
- U.S. District Court of California
- California
- Vice Chair, Committee on Intellectual Property, American Bar Association, Tort and Insurance Section 1995 - 1999
- American Intellectual Property Law Association
Honors/Awards:
- Described as being one of the Nation's leading legal practitioners in Internet piracy by CNN Headline News
- Named a "California Super Lawyer" by Super Lawyers (2004-2012, 2014-2019)
- AV® Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
- Recognized in the inaugural edition of “IP Stars” by Managing Intellectual Property (2013), and thereafter (2014-2018)
Pro bono/Community Service:
- Los Angeles City Prosecutor, Volunteer.
Educational Background:
- Rutgers College, Rutgers University, B.A., 1978
- Middlesex County College, A.S. Electrical Engineering Technology, 1982
Office location for Breton Bocchieri
1100 Glendon Ave
15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-943-4734
Selections
20 Years Super Lawyers
- Super Lawyers: 2004 - 2013, 2015 - 2024
