Erin P. Gibson

• Neodron v. Microsoft Corp. and HP Inc. – Represented Microsoft and HP in patent litigation involving touchscreen mobile devices in the Western District of Texas and in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1162
• Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard – Won summary judgment in HP's favor in patent litigation involving JPEG and camera exposure technology in the Southern District of New York
• Isola USA v. Taiwan Union Technology Corp. – Helped win a complete jury verdict for Isola, including willful infringement and lost profits damages, in the District of Arizona
• Cornell v. Hewlett-Packard – Represented HP in patent litigation involving computer microprocessor technology in the Northern District of New York, which led to the seminal district court decision instigating patent damages reform
• Lodsys v. Hewlett-Packard – Represented HP in patent litigation involving HP Support Assistant and SureSupply software in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
• Hitachi v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Co. & Techtronic Industries – Represented Milwaukee and Techtronic in patent litigation involving sintered neodymium magnets in power tool motors, in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-855
• Motorola Mobility v. TiVo – Represented Motorola in patent litigation involving DVR technology in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division
• Isola USA v. Taiwan Union Technology Corp. – Represented Isola in an ITC enforcement proceeding involving printed circuit board technology, in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-659 (Enforcement)
• Smart Modular v. Netlist, Inc. – Represented Netlist in patent litigation involving DDR3 HCDIMM memory technology in the Eastern District of California
• Linksmart v. InterContinental Hotels Group Resources – Represented InterContinental in patent litigation involving Web authentication and redirection technology in the Central District of California
• InNova v. Trend Micro – Represented Trend Micro in patent litigation involving email authentication technology in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
• InNova v. Hewlett-Packard, HP Enterprise Services & Dr Pepper Snapple – Represented HP, HPES, and Dr Pepper Snapple in patent litigation involving email authentication technology in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
• SkinMedica v. Histogen – Represented Histogen in patent litigation involving cell culture in the Southern District of California
• Ricoh v. Oki Data – Represented Ricoh in patent litigation involving printing technology in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-619 and the District of Delaware
• Motorola v. RIM – Represented Motorola in patent litigation involving smartphone technology in the Northern District of Texas
• Cornell v. Hewlett-Packard – Represented HP in patent litigation involving computer microprocessor technology in the Northern District of New York
• Hewlett-Packard v. Acer – Represented HP in patent litigation involving computer architecture technologies in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
• Hewlett-Packard v. Gateway & eMachines – Represented HP in patent litigation involving DVD drive technology, processor speed technology, and computer display technology in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-547
• Hewlett-Packard v. Gateway – Represented HP in patent litigation involving computer hardware technology in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-509
• Hewlett-Packard v. Gateway – Represented HP in patent litigation involving 19 patents covering numerous computer hardware technologies including processor speed technology, computer display technology, and software upgrade technology in the Southern District of California
• Amiga Development v. Hewlett-Packard – Represented HP in patent litigation involving computer graphics hardware and computer monitoring software technologies in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
• Broadcom v. Qualcomm – Represented Qualcomm in patent litigation involving wireless communication technology in the Central District of California
• Zenon Environmental v. United States Filter – Represented Zenon in patent litigation relating to water and wastewater treatment systems in the Southern District of California

Chambers USA

• Band 4, California Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation, (2025)
• Band 4, Nationwide International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337), (2024 – 2025)
• Band 5, California Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation, (2023 – 2024)
• Band 5, Nationwide International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337), (2022 – 2023)

Chambers Global

• Band 4, USA International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337), (2025)
• Band 5, USA International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337), (2023 – 2024)

The Legal 500 United States

• Hall of Fame, Patents: Litigation (International Trade Commission), (2023 – 2025)
• Recommended, Patents Litigation: Full Coverage, (2019 – 2025)
• Leading Lawyer, Patents: Litigation (International Trade Commission), (2022)
• Recommended, Patents: Litigation (International Trade Commission), (2016, 2020 – 2021)

Additional Recognitions

• Recognized, Top 100 Overall Best-Performing Patent Litigators, Patexia Patent Litigation Intelligence Report, (2026)
• Selected, Intellectual Property, Super Lawyers, (2015 – 2021)