Alyssa Caridis


Los Angeles

Read full biography at

To Alyssa Caridis, IP protection is more than business; it’s personal. For more than a half-century, Alyssa's family patented several mechanical technologies which they developed into a thriving business. Alyssa’s family inspired her love of engineering, as well as her desire to protect innovative ideas. Today Alyssa defends technology companies, ranging from budding start-ups to international corporations. She knows their success depends on it.

Alyssa handles complex patent and copyright litigation, open source licensing and IP counseling.  She has represented companies in all stages of litigation -- from pre-suit investigation, through trial, and on to appeals courts.  She draws upon her engineering degree from Harvey Mudd College to engage with technical professionals and quickly grasp new technologies.  Alyssa has represented clients in connection with a broad spectrum of technologies, ranging from CMOS image sensors and communication systems to software and peripheral computer components to projects in both the aerospace and automotive industries.

Alyssa calls Southern California home, but remains loyal to the sports teams of her Bay Area childhood.

The following is a sample of Alyssa's notable cases.

  • EMC Corp v. Pure Storage, Inc. (D. Del) Alyssa represented plaintiff EMC in a patent infringement lawsuit against its competitor, Pure Storage.  Alyssa directed the infringement and validity case of two asserted patents through expert discovery.  EMC obtained summary judgment of infringement of one of those patents.  A jury awarded EMC $14 million in damages after trial.
  • Blue Spike LLC v. Audible Magic Corp. (E.D. Tex.)  Alyssa is a member of a team that successfully defended Audible Magic Corporation in a patent infringement action brought by Blue Spike LLC. Audible Magic obtained summary judgment of noninfringement for all asserted patents.
  • Oasis Research LLC v. EMC Corp. Alyssa was a member of a team representing EMC Corporation in a patent infringement action brought by Oasis Research, LLC. After a week long trial, an Eastern District of Texas jury found that all of the patents asserted against EMC were invalid.
  • Canon U.S.A. Multimedia Patent Trust v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (S.D. Cal.). Alyssa was a member of a team that successfully defended Canon in a patent infringement action involving four patents directed to video compression. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement in Canon's favor. Panavision Imaging, LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal.). Alyssa was a member of a team that successfully defended Canon USA Inc. in a patent infringement involving patents directed to image sensors used in digital SLR cameras and camcorders. California Institute of Technology v. Canon Inc. and Canon U.S.A., Inc. (C.D. Cal.). Alyssa was a member of a team that defended Canon in a Los Angeles infringement action involving 11 patents relating to image sensors in digital cameras.
  • DISH Networks. Alyssa is a member of a team representing DISH Networks and its related entities in various patent infringement litigations.

Posts by: Alyssa Caridis

Too Many ‘Emergencies’ May Lead to Finding a Case to be “Exceptional”

Order Denying EnerPol, LLC’s Emergency Motion to Strike Schlumberger’s Previously Undisclosed Claim Construction Proposal From its Technology Tutorial and Claim Construction, EnerPol, LLC v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, E.D. Tex. (January 31, 2018) (Judge Rodney Gilstrap)

Almost everyone has heard the story of the boy who cried wolf: a bored shepherd amuses himself by shouting “wolf!” when there was none, laughing every time the villagers rush out to protect his flock. The one time a wolf does actually come to attack, the villagers ignore his call for help because of his previous false alarms.


University Waives Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity by Enforcing Patent Rights

The Regents of the University of Minnesota (“Patent Owner”) sued Ericsson Inc. and Telfonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively, the “Petitioners”) in district court for patent infringement.  When the Petitioners sought inter partes review (“IPR”) to challenge the asserted patents, the Patent Owner moved to dismiss the IPR proceedings arguing that it is a State entity with sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.  An expanded panel[1] of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) held that the Patent Owner waived its sovereign immunity by filing an action in federal court alleging infringement of the challenged patents. READ MORE

Save Me Some Money: Paring Down Costs in Patent Litigation

Order Re Pilot Motions for Summary Judgment, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. OpenTV, Inc. et. al., N.D. Cal. (August 4, 2017) (Judge William Alsup)

It’s no secret that patent litigation is expensive—especially when multiple patents and a multitude of claims are in play.  In 2015, the American Intellectual Property Law Association estimated the median cost of patent litigation, through trial, ranged from $600,000 in lawsuits with less than $1 Million at risk to $5 Million in lawsuits with more than $ 25 Million at risk.  Given this expense and the complexity of these cases, it’s not surprising that courts and parties have sought ways to minimize the resources consumed by patent litigation through various narrowing tools particular to patent lawsuits, including by limiting the number of claims and/or patents litigated in a given lawsuit. READ MORE