The item you have requested is not currently available in English and you have been redirected to the next available page. You may use your browser's back button to return to the item you were viewing.
Country desks feature Dentons lawyers in one jurisdiction with a particular focus or experience in another jurisdiction.
Learn more about our Canada capabilities
Learn more about our United States capabilities
Learn more about our Latin America and the Caribbean capabilities
Learn more about our Europe capabilities
Learn more about our United Kingdom capabilities
Learn more about our Central and Eastern Europe capabilities
Learn more about our Russia, CIS and the Caucasus capabilities
Learn more about our Africa capabilities
Learn more about our Middle East capabilities
Learn more about our Central Asia capabilities
Learn more about our China capabilities
Learn more about our ASEAN capabilities
Learn more about our Asia Pacific capabilities
Learn more about our Australia capabilities
At Dentons, we bring together top tier talent found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal expertise. Start by clicking here
More than 225 Dentons lawyers recognised across 99 categories of The Legal 500 UK 2018
Dentons is pleased to announce that the Firm has been ranked in 99 categories in the 2018 edition of The Legal 500 UK, and a total of 226 Dentons lawyers have been recognised across their respective practice areas.
When a cancellation isn’t a cancellation: Cancelling an insurance policy under the Alberta Insurance Act
When it comes to cancelling an insurance policy, both insurers and insureds need to complete the mandated steps.
"Gay marriage" cake: refusal to supply was not discriminatory
In Lee v. Ashers Baking Company Limited and Others, the Supreme Court considered whether a bakery's refusal to supply a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage was discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation or political opinion
Federal autonomous vehicle legislation could get a lame-duck boost
Should Democrats take control of the US House of Representatives, the effort to pass federal autonomous vehicle legislation may be kicked into overdrive.
IRS issues cost of living adjustments to retirement plan limits
The IRS has issued its 2019 cost of living adjustments to retirement plan limits.
Starting your career as a student at Dentons exposes you to a world of experience and opportunities
With 174 locations in 78 countries, Dentons is home to top-tier talent that is found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal experience. Working with Dentons, you will have the opportunity to learn from the best lawyers in the industry at the largest law firm in the world.
Dentons ranked across 66 practice areas in Chambers UK 2019 with leading individuals recognised in 110 categories
Dentons is pleased to announce that it has been recommended across 66 different practice areas by Chambers & Partners in the Chambers UK 2019 guide.
Dentons launches Market Insights publication: “Digital Transformation and the Digital Consumer”
Dentons, the world’s largest law firm, has launched a new Market Insights publication entitled “Digital Transformation and the Digital Consumer”, which examines the legal implications of the online economy.
Dentons celebrates successful first year following merger with Maclay Murray & Spens
Dentons is pleased to celebrate the first anniversary of the Firm's combination with Maclay Murray & Spens, creating a UK footprint of six offices: three in England (London, Milton Keynes and Watford) and three in Scotland (Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen).
Gaspare J. "Gap" Bono is a seasoned trial attorney, with particular experience in litigating patent infringement and competition and antitrust cases. His practice includes jury and bench trials from New York to California and appellate advocacy before several federal courts of appeals, including the Federal Circuit. He served as co-chair of both the legacy McKenna Long Patent Litigation practice and Antitrust and Unfair Competition practice.
Gap graduated from Georgetown University Law School and clerked for The Honorable John T. Elfvin, United States District Court, Western District of New York. He writes frequently on legal issues. Gap has continually been rated AV Preeminent by his peers for both his legal ability and ethical standards.
Patent and Intellectual Property Practice
Gap litigates patent infringement cases in federal district courts throughout the country, and before the International Trade Commission.
Gap was lead trial counsel in a patent infringement action in which he obtained a US$52.5 million jury verdict for his client in addition to a jury finding of willful infringement. According to Bloomberg, this award was one of the ten largest patent verdicts of the year.
As lead counsel for a French government entity, Gap litigated a patent infringement case against six of the largest LCD manufacturers in the world. Prior to trial, every defendant settled on favorable terms. As part of this case, Gap obtained a significant decision by the Federal Circuit addressing the extent to which foreign companies may be subject to jurisdiction in the United States.
In a patent infringement case on the defense side, as lead counsel Gap won dismissal of the entire action on summary judgment based on license and laches defenses in a competitor suit seeking more than US$43 million in damages. Then, he obtained reversal in the Federal Circuit of the district court’s initial denial of attorneys’ fees and expenses. The district court subsequently issued a substantial fee award in excess of $3 million to his client.
In addition to patents, Gap is highly experienced in litigating other intellectual property rights including trademarks, trade dress, copyrights and trade secrets. For instance, he has represented a global brand in “gray goods” trademark matters to prevent the illegal importation and sale, both in retail stores and over the Internet, of goods produced abroad and not intended for sale in the United States.
Antitrust and Competition Practice
Gap represents clients from around the world with regard to civil class actions and criminal cartel investigations, as well as mergers and joint ventures. He counsels clients on a broad range of antitrust and competitive issues, with the objective of providing practical solutions on transactions, agreements and competitive concerns. He frequently helps clients anticipate and avoid antitrust problems with competitor collaborations; product and service pricing; and relationships with customers, competitors and employees.
Gap provides advice to corporations in connection with mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures and other strategic transactions. For instance, he recently advised a UK-based company on its US$265 million sale of a US-based subsidiary to a competitor in the United States. He worked closely with the company on all facets of this transaction, starting with the disclosure of information to potential bidders and continuing through antitrust approval.
Gap represents companies in criminal antitrust proceedings and in complex civil antitrust litigation. For instance, on behalf of one client, he filed an action in federal court in California alleging monopolization and conspiracy to restrain trade with respect to electronic control systems. The case settled favorably prior to trial.
In another antitrust case, he defended an association, its officers and directors, and their affiliate corporations in a complex antitrust conspiracy case filed in Florida. As lead trial counsel, he completely defeated the US$47-million damages claim while prevailing on an internet defamation counterclaim
His antitrust practice includes the following:
Representative Patent Infringement Cases
Represented plaintiff LPL regarding technology related to manufacturing TFT-LCD products to improve yield and reduce electrostatic discharge. The jury awarded US$52.5 million, the entire amount that was requested at trial. The jury also concluded that infringement was willful.
Represented plaintiff CEA regarding its patented design of LCD technology against the six largest vertical alignment LCD manufacturers in the world, including Sharp Corporation, Tottori Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Fujitsu Display Technology Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and negotiated license agreements for substantial royalties with all defendants prior to trial. As part of this case, successfully appealed to the Federal Circuit a decision of the district court on the issue of personal jurisdiction against CMO.
Acted as co-counsel for plaintiff LPL regarding technology related to improving performance and reliability of TFT-LCD products. The jury found willful infringement and awarded LPL damages in the amount of $53.5 million.
Eidos Display, LLC v. Innolux Corporation , et al.
Represented plaintiff Eidos Display against Innolux regarding technology to reduce mask steps in TFT-LCD manufacturing. The jury found infringement, validity and willfulness, and awarded $4.1 million for direct infringement. On post-verdict motions, the Court enhanced the damages, doubling them to $8.2 million, and awarded pre-judgment interest and costs of $1.8 million, and entered final judgment for nearly $10 million.
Represented defendant Orbis in a multiple patent infringement action brought by competitors Buckhorn and Schoeller Arca Systems relating to technology for collapsible bulk container products. After the completion of discovery and just prior to trial, summary judgment was granted in favor of Orbis on a license defense and the case dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing. Court then awarded attorneys fees and costs in excess of $3 million to Orbis.
Represented plaintiff Habasit in its enforcement of its patents pertaining to radial conveyor belting technology against its largest competitor. Based on fact and expert discovery, the defendant agreed to cease offering its accused product in the United States. After a very successful claim construction decision, the Court granted Habasit’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on defendant’s patents.
Represented plaintiff LPL regarding mechanical technology related to assembly of flat panel display devices and products. This case settled favorably for LPL.
Represented the LG Innotek defendants in a multi-patent infringement suit brought by competitor Nidec regarding spindle motor technology. After obtaining the grant of reexamination on the asserted patents, the case was settled favorably for LG Innotek prior to trial.
Represented LPL regarding a number of patents directed to various aspects of TFT-LCD products, and also represent LPL in the related suits filed by AUO Optronics, AU Optronics Corp. v. LPL et al., C.A. No. 07-137 (W.D. Wis.) (transferred and consolidated with (D. Del.) and by Chi Mei, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. v. LPL et al., C.A. No. 07-1 76 (E.D. Tex.) (transferred and consolidated (D. Del.)). Following a non-jury trial, the case was settled favorably for LPL with regard to both AUO and CMO.
Represent plaintiff Eidos Communications against Skype Technologies in multiple patent infringement action relating to technology for the transmission and control of digitized voice data and message data in communication applications such as messaging and telephony. The case was settled favorably for Eidos prior to trial.
Represent plaintiff Newport Controls against Balboa Instruments in multiple patent infringement and trade secret action relating to technology for electronic control systems used in spas and hot tubs. The case was settled favorably for Newport Controls prior to trial.
Represent defendant Ropak Corporation in case alleging false patent marking on bulk container products in materials handling industry. The case was dismissed with prejudice.
Represent plaintiff Apeldyn in patent infringement action relating to overdrive technology improving the response time of liquid crystal material brought against the largest vertical alignment LCD television manufacturers in the world. A favorable settlement was obtained prior to trial.
Represented Complainants Compound Photonics Ltd. and Compound Photonics US Corporation against Respondents Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc., and Sony Corporation of America in an ITC investigation concerning the unlawful importation and sale of projectors with controlled-angled retarders that infringe several claims of a US patent for fabricating a liquid crystal display device with a controlled-angle retarder. The investigation was concluded and the related district court patent infringement action was settled favorably prior to trial.
Represent plaintiff Compound Photonics Ltd. against defendants Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. in a patent infringement action relating to technology involving methods for fabricating a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) device with a controlled-angle retarder to achieve the desired optical properties of the LCD device. The case was settled favorably prior to trial.
Representative Antitrust Cases
Represent defendants Shinyei Technology Co. Ltd., and Shinyei Capacitor Co., Ltd., in antitrust class action brought by indirect purchasers of finished products alleging international price fixing conspiracy to fix the prices of film capacitors used as components in various electronic products.
Represent defendants Shinyei Kaisha, Shinyei Capacitor Co. Ltd., and Shinyei Corporation of America, Inc., in antitrust class action brought by direct purchasers of film capacitors alleging an international conspiracy to fix the prices of film capacitors.
Represent Shinyei Kaisha, Shinyei Technology Co., Ltd., and Shinyei Corporation of America in criminal investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice relating to an alleged international cartel to fix prices in the capacitors industry.
Represent Shinyei Kaisha and Shinyei Technology Co., Ltd., in investigation by the European Commission, DG Competition, regarding alleged anti-competitive behavior relating to capacitors supplied to the European Union/European Economic Area.
Represented Pro Net Global Association, its officers and directors, and their affiliate corporations (a total of 18 clients and all named defendants) in a complex antitrust conspiracy case in which we defeated a US$47-million damages claim. The plaintiff’s 100-page complaint listed 16 causes of action including claims for price fixing, customer allocation, and unfair trade practices. The Panel issued a decision after a two-week evidentiary hearing, ruling in favor of our clients on all 16 claims.
Represented community hospital in suit brought against the largest health care and hospital system in Northern Virginia alleging monopolization and attempted monopoly in the acute care hospital market. During the trial of a related case, this antitrust suit was settled as part of a US$35 million global settlement.
Represented foreign manufacturer in suit by former US distributor alleging conspiracy to restrain trade, concerted refusal to deal, vertical restraints, price discrimination and monopoly. Counterclaims were filed alleging trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition. Summary judgment granted dismissing all antitrust claims. Trial on counterclaims resulted in jury verdict awarding US$4 million for trademark infringement.
Represented large toy manufacturer in suit alleging tying arrangements, price discrimination, full line forcing, and exclusive dealing. Discovery took over two years to complete which disproved much of plaintiff’s case. As a result, a very favorable settlement was obtained for client.
Represented major oil company in suit brought by largest asphalt paving company in state alleging price fixing and monopolization in the sale of asphalt oil and claiming US$10 million in damages. After six week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of client.
Represented life insurance company in suit brought by largest competitor in industry alleging conspiracy to restrain trade, monopolization, and attempted monopoly. On the eve of trial, extremely favorable settlement obtained involving the payment of zero dollars and injunctive relief having no effect on client’s future business plans.
Represented tire manufacturer in suit alleging vertical restraints, market allocation, exclusive dealing and territorial restraints. After extensive discovery, obtained summary judgment for client, which was affirmed by Third Circuit.
Represented domestic manufacturer of industrial rubber belts and hoses against antitrust counterclaim brought by large foreign competitor sued for theft of trade secrets. Counterclaims were filed alleging exclusive dealing, full line forcing and tying arrangements. Case was favorably settled.
Represented plaintiff Newport Controls against Balboa Instruments and Balboa Water Group in antitrust action alleging monopolization, attempted monopoly and conspiracy to restrain trade relating to electronic control systems in the spa controls market. The case was settled favorably for Newport Controls prior to trial.
Representative Reported Opinions