Mark P. Wine


Orange County

Read full biography at

In Memoriam:

Orrick mourns the passing of our partner and friend Mark Wine on April 20, 2019.

Having tried 27 federal and state trials over the past 40 years, Mark Wine can charm any jury. A natural storyteller and affable teacher, Mark transforms complicated technology into compelling stories, and faceless corporations into engaging individuals. Mark applies the same friendly and confident style when leading his litigation teams, inspiring each person to strive for greatness, and thereby elevating the entire team.

Mark serves as Deputy Chair of the Global Intellectual Property Business Unit. Given his lifelong passion for technology, Mark is a natural fit for intellectual property litigation. He tries patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret cases for Fortune 500 companies throughout California, as well as international clients in Asia and Europe. He handles all phases of discovery, prior art research, pretrial, jury and bench trial work, post-trial motions and appeals before the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Federal Circuits, as well as Section 337 proceedings before the ITC.

As lead defense counsel, Mark settled a five-patent matter for a European medical manufacturer, for approximately one-half of one percent of the original demand. Mark’s team invalidated two of the five asserted patents on summary judgment and successfully defended that outcome in the Federal Circuit. The case settled just before trial on the remaining issues. 

Mark has also defended one of the world's leading consumer electronics manufacturers in patent infringement litigation involving plasma screen displays. The case involved claims and counterclaims covering 16 patents and was settled favorably following an intensive discovery and claims construction battle.

Posts by: Mark P. Wine (In Memoriam)

The Short Arm of the Law: U.S. Problems Prosecuting Foreigners for Trade Secret Theft

Revised post available here.

They say politics stops at the water’s edge. Increasingly, so does the power of the United States to thwart trade secret theft.

As the nation struggles to bolster its defenses against cyberattacks, recent cases have highlighted legal loopholes in prosecuting foreign-based companies and individuals for the theft of trade secrets. Defendants have grown adept at exploiting American procedural rules governing such things as service of process to stall prosecutions indefinitely.

Late last month, a federal grand jury in Wisconsin returned an indictment charging Sinovel Wind Group Co. and two of its executives with stealing trade secrets from American Superconductor Corp. (AMSC). Sinovel is China’s third-biggest maker of wind turbines, and until March 2011, AMSC supplied Sinovel with turbine-control software.

According to the indictment, Sinovel owed AMSC more than $100 million for delivered software, products, and services, and had contracted to buy another $700 million worth. But instead of paying its debts and making good on its orders, Sinovel and two of its executives plotted with a former AMSC employee to steal AMSC’s turbine-control source code and use it in Sinovel’s turbines. READ MORE

Rubber Match? Resin Trade Secret Battle Results in a Multi-Jurisdictional Draw

On the same day last week, two rival rubber resin companies issued press releases — each claiming legal victory in the same trade secret dispute.

SI Group, a developer of rubber resins and tackifiers, touted its “significant victory” over Sino Legend before the U.S. International Trade Commission.  On the same day, Sino Legend also claimed victory in a parallel Chinese action when the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court rejected SI’s claims concerning the same dispute.

SI ’s ITC complaint alleged that Sino Legend misappropriated SI’s secret manufacturing processes by poaching one of SI’s Shanghai-based employees, Xu Jie.  Xu was allegedly the only person at the plant who had access to the entirety of SI’s secret manufacturing processes.  Shortly after Xu’s departure from SI, Sino Legend began producing competing products.  SI accused Sino Legend of using SI’s secret processes and of filing patent applications that contained misappropriated Sino Legend information.