Practices:

• Intellectual Property and Technology
  • Copyrights
  • Global Patent Litigation
  • Trade Secrets
  • Trademarks
• Litigation
  • Antitrust and Unfair Competition
  • Appellate
  • Technology Litigation

Experience

Gaspare J. "Gap" Bono is an experienced trial litigator, with particular expertise in patent infringement litigation. He is Co-Chair of the firm's Global Patent Litigation Group. His patent clients include international companies who are leaders in their respective industries and who hold large patent portfolios. Among his many achievements, Mr. Bono was lead trial counsel in a patent infringement action in which he obtained a $52.5 million jury verdict for his client in addition to a jury finding of willful infringement.

Mr. Bono's extensive litigation practice has been nationwide in scope and he has handled matters in federal and state trial courts in 25 states around the country. His practice has also included appellate advocacy and he has presented oral arguments in several federal courts of appeal, including the Third, Fourth, Eleventh and Federal Circuits.

With respect to antitrust matters, Mr. Bono has handled litigation and provided counseling for clients across a broad range of antitrust subject matters:  price fixing, monopolization, attempted monopoly, vertical restraints, price discrimination, market allocation, tying arrangements, exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance, predatory pricing, territorial restraints and concerted refusals to deal.

Mr. Bono is a member of the bars of the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Federal Circuit. He clerked for The Honorable John T. Elfvin, United States District Court, Western District of New York.

Notable Engagements

Representative Patent Infringement Cases:

LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. (LPL) v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., et al.
Represented plaintiff LPL regarding technology related to manufacturing TFT-LCD products to improve yield and reduce electrostatic discharge. The jury awarded $52.5 million, the entire amount that was requested at trial. The jury also concluded that infringement was willful.

Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique (CEA) v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
Represented plaintiff CEA regarding its patented design of LCD technology against the six largest vertical alignment LCD manufacturers, including Sharp Corporation, Tottori Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Fujitsu Display Technology Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and negotiated license agreements for substantial royalties with all defendants prior to trial. As part of this case, successfully appealed to the Federal Circuit a decision of the district court on the issue of personal jurisdiction against CMO.

LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. (LPL) v. Tatung Company, et al.
Acted as co-counsel for plaintiff LPL regarding technology related to improving performance and reliability of TFT-LCD products. The jury found willful infringement and awarded LPL damages in the amount of $53.5 million.

Habasit Belting, Inc. v. Rexnord Industries, Inc., et al.
Represented plaintiff Habasit in its enforcement of its patents pertaining to radial conveyor belting technology against its largest competitor. Based on fact and expert discovery, the defendant agreed to cease offering its accused product in the United States. After a very successful claim construction decision, the Court granted Habasit’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on defendant’s patents.

LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. (LPL)  v. Viewsonic Corp., et al.
Represented plaintiff LPL regarding mechanical technology related to assembly of flat panel display devices and products. This case settled favorably for LPL.

LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. (LPL) v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp.
Represent LPL regarding a number of patents directed to various aspects of TFT-LCD products, and also represent LPL in the related suits filed by AUO Optronics, AU Optronics Corp. v. LPL et al., C.A. No. 07-137 (W.D. Wis.) (transferred and consolidated with (D. Del.) and by Chi Mei, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. v. LPL et al., C.A. No. 07-1 76 (E.D. Tex.) (transferred and consolidated (D. Del.)). The case is pending.

Nidec Corporation v. LG Innotek Co., Ltd., et al.
Represented the LG Innotek defendants in a multi-patent infringement suit brought by competitor Nidec regarding spindle motor technology. After obtaining the grant of reexamination on the asserted patents, the case was settled favorably for LG Innotek prior to trial.

Apeldyn Corporation v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al.
Represent plaintiff Apeldyn in patent infringement action relating to overdrive technology improving the response time of liquid crystal material brought against the largest vertical alignment LCD television manufacturers in the world, including AU Optronics, Chi Mei Optoelectronics, Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The case is pending.

Eidos Communications, LLC, et al., v. Skype Technologies, SA, et al.
Represent plaintiff Eidos Communications against Skype Technologies in multiple patent infringment action relating to technology for the transmission and control of digitized voice data and message data in communication applications such as messaging and telephony. The case is pending.

Representative Antitrust Cases:

U-Can-II v. Pro Net Global
Representation of Pro Net Global Association, its officers and directors, and their affiliate corporations (a total of 18 clients and all named defendants) in a complex antitrust conspiracy case in which we defeated a $47-million damages claim.  The plaintiff’s 100-page complaint listed 16 causes of action including claims for price fixing, customer allocation, and unfair trade practices.  The Panel issued a decision after a two-week evidentiary hearing, ruling in favor of our clients on all 16 claims. 

Jefferson Memorial Hospital v. Inova Health Systems
Representation of hospital in suit brought against the largest health care and hospital system in Northern Virginia alleging monopolization and attempted monopoly in the acute care hospital market.  During the trial of a related case, this antitrust suit was settled as part of a $35 million global settlement.

Sea-Roy Corporation v. Rammax Maschinenbau GmbH, et al.
Representation of foreign manufacturer in suit by former U.S. distributor alleging conspiracy to restrain trade, concerted refusal to deal, vertical restraints, price discrimination and monopoly.  Counterclaims were filed alleging trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition.  Summary judgment granted dismissing all antitrust claims.  Trial on counterclaims resulted in jury verdict awarding $4 million for trademark infringement.

Morris Electronics, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc.
Representation of large toy manufacturer in suit alleging tying arrangements, price discrimination, full line forcing, and exclusive dealing.  Discovery took over two years to complete which disproved much of plaintiff’s case.  As a result, a very favorable settlement was obtained for client.

Fred Weber, Inc. v. Shell Oil Company
Representation of major oil company in suit brought by largest asphalt paving company in state alleging price fixing and monopolization in the sale of asphalt oil and claiming $10 million in damages.  After six week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of client.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Liberty Life Insurance Company
Representation of life insurance company in suit brought by largest competitor in industry alleging conspiracy to restrain trade, monopolization, and attempted monopoly.  On the eve of trial, extremely favorable settlement obtained involving the payment of zero dollars and injunctive relief having no effect on client’s future business plans.

Inter-City Tire & Auto Center, Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc.
Representation of tire manufacturer in suit alleging vertical restraints, market allocation, exclusive dealing and territorial restraints.  After extensive discovery, obtained summary judgment for client, which was affirmed by Third Circuit.

Gates Rubber Company v. Bando American, Inc.
Representation of domestic manufacturer of industrial rubber belts and hoses against antitrust counterclaim brought by large foreign competitor sued for theft of trade secrets.  Counterclaims were filed alleging exclusive dealing, full line forcing and tying arrangements.  Case was favorably settled.

Representative Reported Opinions:

LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., 551 F. Supp.2d 333 (D. Del. 2008)

Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., 395 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

Frehling Enterprises, Inc. v. International Select Group, Inc., 192 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 1999)

Education

• J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1976
• B.S., University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School, 1972

Admitted

• District of Columbia
• New York
• U.S. Supreme Court
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
• U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
• U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas