• undefined
      • undefined
    1. Home
    2. People
    3. Manhas, Robbie

    Robbie Manhas

    Partner

    Washington, D.C.

    Robbie Manhas is a member of the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate group. His practice focuses on high-stakes appeals, with a particular emphasis on patent law and administrative law. He has written dozens of appellate briefs and has presented oral argument in courts across the country, including the Federal Circuit, the D.C. Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, and Florida's Third District Court of Appeal.

    Robbie has achieved significant victories in areas including patent law, statutory and regulatory interpretation, administrative law, and personal and appellate jurisdiction. He specializes in patent appeals before the Federal Circuit, where he has presented oral argument seven times. His winning arguments include a complete, precedent-setting victory for a leading tech company in an appeal and cross-appeal of a PTAB decision, where he secured affirmance of the PTAB's decision to strike down some patent claims and reversal of the PTAB's decision to uphold the remainder.

    Robbie has represented clients across a wide variety of industries, including semiconductors and electronics, software, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and sporting goods. His work has also involved a number of U.S. agencies, including the Patent and Trademark Office, the International Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    Before joining Orrick, Robbie was a lawyer at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, where he was a member of its Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation, and Government and Regulatory Litigation groups. Before that, Robbie was a law clerk for the Honorable Richard G. Taranto of the Federal Circuit.

    • Representative engagements include:

      Patent law

      • Leading tech company v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (Fed. Cir. Nos. 23-1501, 1554) - Successfully represented leading tech company in an appeal and cross-appeal of an IPR decision that stuck down some patent claims while upholding others. Presented oral argument and secured a full, precedent-setting victory, resulting in all claims being held unpatentable. The patent related to image-capture technology. The issues on appeal were obviousness and the PTAB's jurisdiction over expired patents.  [Opinion]
      • Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. global semiconductor manufacturing company (Fed. Cir. No. 22-1422) - Successfully represented global semiconductor manufacturing company in defending an IPR determination holding patent claims unpatentable for obviousness, presenting oral argument and securing a full victory. The patent related to a semiconductor device. The issue on appeal was claim construction.
      • Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 20-1758) (U.S. No. 21-1566) - Successfully represented Gilead subsidiary Kite in wiping out a $1.2 billion patent-infringement verdict involving Kite's lifesaving cancer therapy. Kite's appeal raised written-description, enablement, certificate-of-correction, and damages defenses. The Federal Circuit ruled in Kite's favor on written description, not reaching the other issues, resulting in a full reversal. The Supreme Court then denied Juno's petition for a writ of certiorari. [Federal Circuit Opinion]
      • Zomm, LLC v. leading tech company (Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-2000, -2022) - Successfully represented leading tech company in an IPR appeal, presenting oral argument and securing a full victory.  The patent related to wireless security devices. The issues on appeal were claim construction and obviousness.
      • Uniloc 2017 LLC v. leading tech company (Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-1058, -1059) - Successfully represented leading tech company in an IPR appeal, presenting oral argument and securing a full victory. The patents related to pedometers. The issues on appeal were obviousness and the Appointments Clause.
      • Merck & Co. Inc. v. Gilead Sciences Inc. (U.S. No. 18-378) - Successfully represented Gilead, securing denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court on the question of whether, under the Patent Act, the equitable defense of unclean hands precludes legal relief in the form of damages. This victory preserved a court-ordered nullification of $200 million in damages that had been awarded to Merck.
      • Philips Lighting North America Corp., et al. v. Wangs Alliance Corporation (Fed. Cir. No. 17-1526)* - Represented and presented oral argument on behalf of Philips Lighting, challenging an IPR determination on errors concerning motivation to combine, reasonable expectation of success, and adequate notice. The patent related to a circuit arrangement for operating semiconductor light sources.
      • Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 16-1728)* - Successfully represented Universal Wilde in defending against an appeal from a district court's order dismissing 243 patent claims as reciting ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent related to methods of electronically verifying the contents of a mail object. [Opinion]

      Administrative law and statutory interpretation

      • George v. McDonough (U.S. No. 21-234) - Represented petitioner, a disabled veteran, at certiorari and merits stages of a case about the scope of "clear and unmistakable error," a statutory exception to finality in the veterans-benefits context that allows otherwise-final benefits denials to be challenged on collateral review.
      • Li v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (D.C. Cir. No. 20-1245) - As court-appointed amicus curiae, successfully argued that the D.C. Circuit and the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to hear an IRS whistleblower's appeal of the agency's rejection of her claim for a whistleblower award, leading to precedent on the subject. Presented oral argument. The court "extend[ed] its appreciation to Mr. Manhas for his excellent amicus brief on the topic." [Opinion]
      • Military-Veterans Advocacy v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Fed. Cir. No. 19-1600) - Successfully represented and presented oral argument on behalf of Military-Veterans Advocacy in challenging VA's final rule implementing the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017. Secured invalidation of a regulation related to attorney fees in a precedent-setting win. [Opinion]
      • Oracle America, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor (D.D.C. No. 1:19-cv-03574) – Represented Oracle in an APA and constitutional challenge to the Department of Labor’s administrative tribunals for prosecuting, adjudicating, and remediating claims of class-wide employment discrimination against government contractors. Case settled while cross-motions for summary judgment were fully briefed and pending.
      • Procopio v. Wilkie (Fed. Cir. No. 17-1821) (en banc) - Successfully represented "Blue Water Navy" veteran in a pro bono en banc case, securing a 9-2 ruling that the Agent Orange Act unambiguously grants veterans who served within the Republic of Vietnam's 12-mile territorial sea a presumption of herbicide exposure and service-connection based on having "served in the Republic of Vietnam." [Opinion]

      Other

      • Facebook, LLC v. Grind Hard Holdings, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. No. 3D23-0948) - Successfully represented Meta, presenting oral argument and winning a precedent-setting reversal of an order denying Meta’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. [Opinion]
      • Roummel Ingram v. John Prelesnik (6th Cir. No. 16-2172)* - Represented and presented oral argument on behalf of Roummel Ingram in a pro bono appeal from a district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
      • Ada Mercedes Conde-Vidal, et al. (1st Cir. No. 16-1313)* - Represented a group of individuals and advocacy groups petitioning for a writ of mandamus based on a district court's refusal to enter judgment that the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), rendered unconstitutional Puerto Rico's laws barring (1) LGBT marriage and (2) recognition of lawful LGBT marriages entered in other jurisdictions.

      * Representation prior to joining Orrick.

    News