- Represented a semiconductor company as the complainant in an ITC investigation relating to processors and other integrated circuits that include hybrid bonded or direct bonded structures. Certain Semiconductor Devices, Computing Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1465 (ITC).
- Represented a vaporizer company as the respondent in an ITC investigation. Certain Vaporizer Devices Cartridges Used Therewith, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1464 (ITC).
- Represented three U.S. cellular carriers and two suppliers of mobile telecommunications infrastructure equipment in three district court actions and 11 inter partes review proceedings relating to 4G and 5G mobile telecommunications equipment. Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al., Nos. 2:23-cv-00638, -639, -640 (E.D. Tex.); IPR2025-00036, -00037, -00083, -00084, -00137, -00138, -00290, -00291, -00292, -00293, -00317 (PTAB).
- Represented a manufacturing company as the complainant in an ITC investigation relating to fiber-optic connectors and adapters. Certain Fiber-Optic Connectors, Adapters, Jump Cables, Patch Cords, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1399 (ITC); US Conec Ltd. v. Senko Advance Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00202 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented a consumer electronics company as the defendant in district court litigation relating to smart thermostat systems. Nostromo LLC v. ADT Inc. et al., Nos. 2:24-cv-00122, -121 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented a manufacturing company as the complainant in an ITC investigation and a defendant in district court litigation relating to LED lighting devices. Certain LED Lighting Devices, LED Power Supplies, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1371 (ITC); Current Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Signify Holding BV et al., No. 1:23-cv-11398 (D. Mass.).
- Represented a consumer electronics company as the defendant in district court litigation, petitioner in six inter partes review proceedings, and a Federal Circuit appeal relating to activity monitors. Apple Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-07608 (N.D. Cal.); AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple Inc., IPR2023-00948, -00949, -00950, -01434, IPR2024-00095, -00169 (PTAB); No. 25-1543 (Fed. Cir.).
- Represented a manufacturing company as the plaintiff in district court litigation relating to LED lighting devices. Signify North America Corporation et al v. Lepro Innovation Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-02095 (D. Nev.).
- Represented a consumer electronics company as the defendant in district court litigation relating to wireless home entertainment systems. Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Snap One Holdings Corp., No. 2:23-cv-00003 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented a consumer electronics company as the defendant in district court litigation relating to wireless security systems. Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Resideo Technologies, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00420 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented a consumer electronics company as the defendant in district court litigation relating to smart thermostat systems. EcoFactor, Inc. v. Resideo Technologies, Inc., No. 6-22-cv-00069 (W.D. Tex.); EcoFactor, Inc. v. Resideo Technologies, Inc., No. 6:23-cv-00061 (W.D. Tex.).
- Represented a consumer electronics company as the respondent in an ITC investigation and in a Federal Circuit appeal relating to activity monitors. Certain Wearable Monitoring Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1190 (ITC); Philips North America, LLC v. ITC, 21-2064 (Fed. Cir.).
J. Ravindra Fernando
Partner,
- Phone: +1 704 444 1136
- Email: ravi.fernando@alston.com
With a background in electrical engineering, Ravi is an advocate who can translate a complex, technical issue into a relatable one.
- Represented a U.S. cellular carrier as the defendant in district court litigation relating to passive intermodulation in mobile telecommunications networks. Finesse Wireless LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 2-21-cv-00316, -00317 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented a telecommunications company as the defendant in district court litigation and three inter partes review proceedings relating to the radio interface in mobile telecommunications networks. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 2:21-cv-00213, -00215 (E.D. Tex.); Nokia of America Corporation v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, IPR2022-00446, -00726, -00755 (PTAB).
- Represented a consumer electronics company as the respondent in an ITC investigation relating to water heater blowers. Certain Blowers and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1217 (ITC).
- Represented a U.S. cellular carrier as the defendant in district court litigation relating to the radio interface in mobile telecommunications networks. Sol IP LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-00528 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented a telecommunications company as the respondent in an ITC investigation and the defendant in district court litigation relating to optical data transmission in subsea wavelength division-multiplexed (WDM) systems. Certain Subsea Telecommunication Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1098 (ITC); Xtera Inc., et al. v. Nokia Corp., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01876 (D. Del.).
- Represented a telecommunications company in two inter partes review proceedings relating to optical data transmission in subsea wavelength division-multiplexed (WDM) systems. NEC Corp., et al. v. Neptune Subsea IP Ltd., IPR2018-01161, -01190 (PTAB).
- Represented a telecommunications company as the complainant in an ITC investigation and as the plaintiff in district court litigation relating to power management and antenna design in mobile communication devices. Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof, Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1038 and -1039 (ITC); Nokia Technologies Oy v. Apple Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01441 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented a telecommunications company as a third-party intervenor in eight district court actions relating to 3G and 4G mobile telecommunications core networks. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. T-Mobile, US Inc., et al., Nos. 2:16-cv-00052, -55, -56, -57 (E.D. Tex.); Nokia Solutions and Network US LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Nos. 2:16-cv-00753, -754, -755, -756 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented a telecommunications company in four inter partes review proceedings relating to 3G and 4G mobile telecommunications core networks. Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., IPR2017-00592, -00593, -00695, -01518 (PTAB).
Ravi Fernando represents clients in complex patent disputes before the International Trade Commission, federal district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He focuses on high-stakes patent matters involving cutting-edge technologies, including 4G and 5G telecommunications, fiber-optic and optical transmission systems, consumer electronics, smart home products, wearable devices, and advanced industrial technologies.
Ravi brings a results‑driven approach and a unique ability to translate complex technical issues into clear legal arguments, supporting clients in disputes where legal strategy and engineering detail intersect. He has extensive experience developing and executing coordinated litigation strategies across multiple forums, including parallel district court actions, ITC investigations, and inter partes review proceedings. His practice spans all phases of patent disputes, from pre-suit strategy through trial and appeal.
Clients rely on Ravi for strategic judgment, technical fluency, and courtroom advocacy in their most significant disputes. He has been recognized by the Daily Report as “On the Rise” and by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® each year since 2023.
Bar Admissions
- North Carolina
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Education
- University of Notre Dame (J.D., 2015)
- University of Notre Dame (B.S., 2009)