Bo Moon


Thank you for your interest. Before you communicate with one of our attorneys, please note: Any comments our attorneys share with you are general information and not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship will exist between you or your business and O’Melveny or any of its attorneys unless conflicts have been cleared, our management has given its approval, and an engagement letter has been signed. Meanwhile, you agree: we have no duty to advise you or provide you with legal assistance; you will not divulge any confidences or send any confidential or sensitive information to our attorneys (we are not in a position to keep it confidential and might be required to convey it to our clients); and, you may not use this contact to attempt to disqualify O’Melveny from representing other clients adverse to you or your business. By clicking "accept" you acknowledge receipt and agree to all of the terms of this paragraph and our Disclaimer.

Moon is an intellectual property lawyer who focuses on intellectual property, patent, and technology litigation, with an emphasis on patent-related and trade secret matters. Bo has extensive experience offensive and defensive cases in District Court and ITC litigation. This includes patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of technology licensing or development contracts, antitrust, and other technology-intense claims. Bo has also assisted companies in confidential matters involving review and analysis of patent portfolios and counseled clients on issues raised by the enforcement of patents.

Before joining O’Melveny, Bo worked as a software application analyst for Siemens AG, and as an industrial designer for Solid Technologies in Seoul, Korea and LG Electronics Design Technologies in Dublin, Ireland.


  • Korean


Bar Admissions

  • California

Court Admissions

  • US District Court, Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California


  • University of California at Los Angeles, J.D.: Order of the Coif; Articles Editor, Journal of Law & Technology
  • Purdue University, M.A., Industrial Design
  • Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology, B.S., Industrial Design

Professional Activities


  • “Supreme Court Expands Scope of Patent Exhaustion,” and (May 30, 2017)
  • “TC Heartland,” (May 22, 2017) 
  • “Supreme Court Rules No § 271(f)(1) Liability for Supplying Single Component from the United States,” (Feb. 22, 2017)
  • “Supreme Court Back In The Patent Limelight,” Orange County Business Journal (September 2014)
  • “Maintaining the Standard of Proof on Invalidity,”Law360 (February 9, 2011)

International Trade Commission Matters

  • In re Certain Touch-Controlled Mobile Devices, Computer and Components Thereof (337-TA-1162 and 1193) Defended respondent in cases filed by a Dublin-based company, Neodron Ltd. including two ITC matters and three W.D. Tex. cases accusing Samsung of infringing multiple patents relating to touchscreen technology.
  • In re Wafer-Level Packaging Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing Same (Including Cellular Phones, Tablets, Laptops, and Notebooks) and Components Thereof (337-TA-1080) Defended respondent in patent infringement case filed by Tessera Technologies, Inc. ("TATI), a subsidiary of Xperi Corporation involving semiconductor processing, bonding, and packaging technology; successfully terminated the ITC case in favor of arbitration and soon thereafter reached a favorable, global settlement of the disputes.
  • In re Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-897) Defended respondent in this patent infringement matter involving Samsung's optical disk drives, desktop computers, Blu-ray and DVD players/recorders, and laptop computers; prevailed on summary determination that no domestic industry existed and complainant had no standing; investigation was terminated.
  • In re Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (337-TA-692) and parallel litigation in the Central District of California. Defended respondent in patent infringement matter involving 4,600 accused products and four patents. After a full trial on the merits in 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued a complete defense judgment in Samsung's favor on December 22, 2010.