O’Melveny Worldwide

Brooke M. Wilner

Counsel

Washington, DC Office
Areas of Focus
Areas of Focus
Intellectual Property & Technology
Litigation & Investigations
Overview Experience Insights News Credentials

Brooke Wilner is an Intellectual Property & Technology litigation counsel in O’Melveny’s Washington, DC office. Brooke leverages her experience as a former Federal Circuit clerk to advise clients on all stages of patent litigation, from pre-filing investigation through fact and expert discovery, trial, and particularly on appeal. Brooke has an engineering background, and routinely works on technical matters involving the semiconductor, software, medical device, aerospace, and automotive industries. She has represented clients before the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission (ITC), numerous district courts, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Brooke also advises clients on trade secret and trademark cases.

Brooke also maintains an active pro bono practice, often focusing on matters affecting veterans, for which she has been recognized on the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll.

Prior to joining O’Melveny, Brooke clerked for Judge Kara Farnandez Stoll at the Federal Circuit. Brooke also practiced intellectual property litigation at global law firms.

  • Defended international memory manufacturer in complex district court litigation involving seven asserted patents (W.D. Tex.).
  • Defended international consumer products company against action seeking to preliminarily restrain the enforcement of its patent rights, leading to agreed dismissal with prejudice (S.D.N.Y.).
  • Represented semiconductor lithography company in district court litigation involving metal oxide photoresist design; obtained favorable settlement following fact discovery and preliminary injunction briefing (D. Del.).
  • Represented aerospace company in district court litigation regarding aircraft interior design technologies, including related inter partes review proceedings and Federal Circuit appeals; obtained dismissal and favorable settlement (C.D. Cal., PTAB, Fed. Cir.)
  • Defended international semiconductor manufacturing company in ITC Section 337 investigation involving methods of manufacturing MOS and FinFET transistors, leading to favorable settlement (I.T.C.).
  • Defended medical device company in ITC Section 337 investigation involving MRI compatible implantable medical devices through evidentiary hearing, leading to favorable settlement (I.T.C.).
  • Defended international electronics company in multiple ITC Section 337 investigations regarding touchscreen and video processing technologies; obtained dismissal and favorable settlements in each investigation (I.T.C.).
  • Represented international software company in defending two Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decisions regarding GPS technology on appeal to the Federal Circuit, which ended in favorable Rule 36 affirmances (Fed. Cir.).
  • Represented international electronics company in multiple co-pending Federal Circuit appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board involving wearable electronics (Fed. Cir.).

Admissions

Bar Admission

  • District of Columbia
  • Georgia

Court Admissions

  • US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • USPTO

Education

  • Georgia State University, J.D.: cum laude, highest Pro Bono & Public Service distinction; Assistant Editor, Georgia State University Law Review; The Order of Barristers; Intellectual Property Fellowship; Moot Court Board
  • Georgia State University, M.A., English
  • North Carolina State University, B.S., Aerospace Engineering, B.A., English Literature: cum laude, Caldwell Fellow; Goodnight Scholar; Benjamin Franklin Scholar

Professional Activities

Judicial Clerkship

  • The Honorable Kara Farnandez Stoll, US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Internship

  • US Attorney’s Office, Civil Division, Northern District of Georgia
  • US Attorney’s Office, Computer Crimes and Monetary Penalties Divisions, Western District of Missouri

Author

  • “Getting Creative with Protecting Creativity: Protecting a Consumer Brand with More Than Just Trademarks,” 41 The Licensing Journal 7 (Aug. 2021)
  • “Insights from the First Year of the USPTO’s New Motion to Amend Pilot Program,” 20 Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property 128 (2021)
  • “Printed, Incentivised to Combine? Evident(ial) Challenges on Inter Partes Review Proceedings,” 49 Cipa Journal 6 (June 2020)
  • “Evolving Case Law Elucidates Atty Fees for Patent Litigants,” Law360 (July 17, 2020)
Related Practices
Intellectual Property & Technology
Litigation & Investigations