Additionally, Mr. Brogan frequently speaks on topics related to patent litigation and prosecution. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law, where he teaches a patent litigation course. As co-founder of the annual continuing legal education event, the Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property Institute, he has delivered presentations on patent infringement risk, claim construction, and patent litigation budgeting.
Mr. Brogan has been recognized by various legal guides and publications, including Chambers USA, Legal 500, Managing Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Management, and 5280 Denver Magazine, for his expertise and work in intellectual property and patent litigation.
Representations
Patent Litigation Defense
Butamax v. Gevo (D. Del.): Counsel for Gevo in a patent infringement action involving metabolically engineered micro-organisms for biofuel production.
Broadcom v. Qualcomm (ITC): Counsel for Qualcomm in a patent infringement dispute involving wireless communications technology.
Mondis Technology v. Chimei Innolux and Innolux (E.D. Tex. and ITC): Counsel in patent litigation involving video display technologies.
O2 Micro International v. Hon Hai Precision Industries (E.D. Tex.): Counsel in patent litigation involving switching power controllers used in LCD backlighting applications.
O2 Micro International v. Monolithic Power Systems (N.D. Cal. and E.D. Tex.): Counsel in patent litigation involving power management technologies for LCD backlighting.
MKS Instruments v. Advanced Energy Industries (D. Del.): Counsel in patent litigation involving reactive gas sources used in plasma processing systems.
Stratos Lightwave v. Picolight (D. Del.): Counsel in patent litigation involving opto-electronic transceiver modules.
Patent Litigation — Plaintiff Representation
ACQIS v. EMC (D. Mass.): Counsel in patent litigation involving enterprise storage products.
Enfish v. Microsoft (C.D. Cal.): Counsel in patent litigation involving database architecture and data structures.
Qualcomm v. Nokia (E.D. Tex.): Counsel in patent litigation involving wireless communications technology.
Realtime Data v. T-Mobile (E.D. Tex.): Counsel in patent litigation involving data compression technology.
ACQIS v. IBM (E.D. Tex.): Counsel in patent litigation involving blade server technologies.
Positive Technologies v. Hitachi America (E.D. Tex.): Counsel in patent litigation involving processing technologies to improve response speed and image quality in display systems.
Applied Films v. Galileo Vacuum Systems and Galileo Vacuum Systems S.r.l. (N.D. Ga.): Counsel in patent litigation involving plasma-based web coating systems.
Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir.) (en banc): Consultant in a high-profile Federal Circuit appeal involving modular building technologies.
Quova v. Digital Envoy (N.D. Cal.): Counsel in a declaratory judgment action involving geolocation software.
Outlast Technologies v. Frisby Technologies (D. Colo.): Counsel in patent litigation involving temperature-regulating fibers and fabrics.
Vixel v. Brocade Communications Systems (N.D. Cal.): Counsel in patent litigation involving storage area network switching technologies.
Vixel v. QLogic (D. Del.): Counsel in patent litigation involving storage networking technologies.
IP Learn v. Saba; IP Learn v. SmartForce; IP Learn v. SkillSoft (N.D. Cal.): Counsel in multiple patent infringement actions involving e-learning systems.
Vidamed v. Prosurge (N.D. Cal.): Counsel in patent litigation involving transurethral needle ablation medical devices.
Speaking Engagements
“Regulating Big Tech: Antitrust and Competition Law—Global, National, and Local”: 23rd Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Law Institute, May 30, 2025
“The Future of Global Innovation Protection”: 22nd Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Law Institute, May 30–31, 2024