"Mr. Beaber is a great first chair trial attorney, but he is also hands-on with respect to day-to-day activities in our disputes – this is a rare combination and one I value deeply."
Chambers & Partners Global 2016

Overview

Jamie B. Beaber is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC office, is a member of the Intellectual Property practice and leads the Section 337 Litigation practice. Jamie’s practice is focused on patent litigation matters before the US International Trade Commission under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and before US district courts across the country. Jamie is a vigorous and well-respected first-chair trial attorney and advocate for his clients with numerous accolades and honors. IAM Patent 1000 notes that Jamie “…cares immensely about his work and demonstrates a commitment to getting the best result. His early preparation gives him an excellent understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his case, and his assessment of the likely results of certain actions in unerringly accurate. Having acted extensively for Asian companies, he really understands cultural differences, and he translates that into success in US litigation. That he has these faculties at a young age is particularly impressive.”

Section 337 Investigations. Jamie has lead more than 60 Section 337 investigations before the US International Trade Commission, and several related appellate litigations before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His practice with respect to Section 337 includes extensive experience representing complainants and respondents in unfair import investigations concerning patent, trademark and trade dress infringement. Jamie’s technical background is in electrical engineering; however, his experience in Section 337 investigations involves a diverse array of technologies and products, including:

  • Mobile phones and computing devices
  • Gaming consoles
  • Wind turbines
  • Various complex semiconductor devices
  • Tunable laser chips
  • Display technologies and optics
  • Cold cathode fluorescent lamps
  • Short-wavelength light emitting diodes and laser diodes
  • Organic light emitting diodes
  • Accumulation and buffer systems
  • Medical devices
  • Hard disk drives
  • Digital cameras
  • Hybrid motors
  • Automobile components

US District Court Patent Litigation. Jamie has lead more than 70 US district court patent litigation matters, specializing in such matters before the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, US District Court for the Western District of Texas, US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, US District Court for the District of Delaware, US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, US District Court for the District of Columbia, US District Court for the Southern District of California and the US District Court for the District of Maryland. Jamie has utilized his technical training in electrical engineering to successfully represent his clients in cases involving a wide range of technologies. Whether in the form of voluntary dismissals of complaints, favorable settlements, or favorable jury or bench verdicts following trial, he has a wealth of experience to draw upon.

Post Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board. The implementation of the America Invents Act, and the creation of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, warrants consideration of IPR proceedings as part of an overall comprehensive patent litigation strategy. In addition to Jamie’s extensive patent litigation experience before various U.S. district courts and the ITC, he has extensive experience representing clients in IPR proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Docket Navigator has listed him as one of the “Top Attorneys in the PTAB” based on the number of IPRs filed. Jamie’s IPR practice includes representation in technology areas such as, for example, display technologies and optics, power management technologies, graphics processing, video streaming, microprocessor technologies and telecommunication standards and transmission technologies.

Customs Practice. Jamie has broad experience representing clients before US Customs and Border Protection on matters arising from Section 337 investigations. He has advised clients, both complainants and respondents, on the enforcement of exclusion orders issued by the US International Trade Commission, including advocating on behalf of clients before the Intellectual Property Rights Branch of Customs with respect to exclusion order language, exclusion order scope issues related to subsequently re-designed articles and formal Customs rulings. Jamie has also advised clients on Customs compliance issues, including tariff classification, country of origin, anti-circumvention issues, wrongful liquidations and voluntary disclosures.

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings. In addition to Jamie’s intellectual property litigation practice, he represents clients in all phases of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings before the US Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission, including investigations, administrative reviews, sunset reviews, Section 129 proceedings, changed circumstances reviews, and scope ruling requests, as well as in related appellate litigation before the US Court of International Trade and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has represented clients in a broad spectrum of industries in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, including the steel, bearing, automobile, uranium, paper, furniture and agricultural industries, among others.

Jamie’s experience in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings also extends to counseling clients subject to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings in foreign countries and advising clients and foreign governments on matters arising under the agreements of the World Trade Organization, including in the context of WTO dispute settlement proceedings.

Pro Bono Representation. Jamie also provides pro bono representation to clients in connection with asylum and other immigration proceedings before US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration Court and appeals to federal court.

Experience

Representative Section 337 Investigations

  • Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-882, representing respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.; Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America; and Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
  • Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-873, representing respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
  • Certain Integrated Circuit Packages Provided With Multiple Heat-Conducting Paths and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-851, representing respondent LG Electronics.
  • Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits and Devices Containing Same, Inv. No. 377-TA-848, representing respondent Motorola Mobility Inc.
  • Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Control Technology, Inv. No. 337-TA-845, representing respondents Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc., Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc.
  • Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics, Inv. No. 337-TA-834, representing respondent Motorola Mobility, Inc.
  • Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-814, representing respondents Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America Inc., Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc.
  • Certain Devices for Improving Uniformity Used in a Backlight Module and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-805, representing respondents LG Corporation, LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-796, representing respondents Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-794, representing complainants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC.
  • Certain Motion Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same, Consol Inv. No. 337-TA-773, representing respondent Intec, Inc.
  • Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-754, representing complainants Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. and Louis Vuitton U.S. Manufacturing, Inc.
  • Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-753, representing respondent Motorola Mobility, Inc.
  • Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-752, representing complainants Motorola Mobility, Inc. and General Instrument Corporation.
  • Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-750, representing respondents Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Motorola Solutions, Inc.
  • Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-745, representing complainant Motorola Mobility, Inc.
  • Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-744, representing respondents Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Motorola Solutions, Inc.
  • Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (CCFL) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-666, representing respondent Microsemi Corporation.
  • Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-665, representing respondents Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, and Seagate (US) LLC.
  • Certain Tunable Laser Chips, Assemblies and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-662, representing complainant JDS Uniphase Corporation.
  • Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-641, representing respondents Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Americas, Inc., and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc.
  • Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-640, representing respondent Toshiba Corporation.
  • Certain Hard Disk Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-616, representing respondent Toshiba America Information systems, Inc.
  • Certain Buffer Systems and Components Thereof Used in Container Processing Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-609, representing respondents KHS AG and KHS USA, Inc.
  • Certain Endoscopic Probes for Uses in Argon Plasma Coagulation Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-569, representing respondents Canady Technology LLC and Canady Technology Germany GmbH.
  • Certain Foam Footwear, Inv. No. 337-TA-567, representing respondent Australia Unlimited, Inc.
  • Certain Combination Motor and Transmission Systems and Devices Used Therein, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-561, representing non-party Nissan North America, Inc.
  • Certain Digital Image Storage and Retrieval Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-527, representing complainant Ampex Corporation.
  • Certain Point of Sale Terminals and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-524, representing respondents Lipman USA, Inc. and Lipman Electronic Engineering, Ltd.
  • Certain Ink Markers and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-522, representing complainant Sanford, L.P.
  • Certain Digital Image Storage and Retrieval Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-520, representing complainant Ampex Corporation.
  • Certain Automotive Measuring Devices, Products Containing Same, and Bezels for Such Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-494, representing respondents American Products Company, Inc., Equus Products, Inc., GR Motorsports, Inc., and Hiper Industries, Inc.
  • Certain Bearings and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-469, representing complainant SKF USA Inc.

Representative US District Court Cases

  • Advanced Media Networks, LLC v. General Motors Company and Onstar, LLC (D. Del. 2015) – representing defendants General Motors Company and Onstar LLC.
  • Allen Video Technology, Inc. v. Hitachi America, Ltd. (D. Md. 2015) – representing defendant Hitachi America, Ltd.
  • Allen Video Technology, Inc. v. Christie Digital Systems USA, Inc. (D. Md. 2015) – representing defendant Christie Digital Systems USA, Inc.
  • Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2014) – representing defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al. (E.D. Tex. 2014) – representing defendants Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, Kia Motors Corporation, Kia Motors America, Inc., and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc.
  • Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC (D. Del. 2014) – representing defendant General Motors LLC.
  • Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2014) – representing defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al. (D. Del. 2014) – representing defendants LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America Inc.
  • Allen Video Technology, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. et al. (D. Md. 2014) – representing defendants Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation.
  • Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (D. Del. 2013) – representing defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., and LG Display America, Inc.
  • Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. (D. Del. 2013) – representing defendant Amazon.com Inc.
  • Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Dell Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2013) – representing defendant Dell Inc.
  • Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company (E.D. Tex. 2013) – representing defendant Hewlett-Packard Company.
  • Industrial Technology Research Institute v. LG Electronics Inc. et. al. (S.D. Cal. 2013) – representing defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal. 2017) – representing Maxell, Ltd.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. Blackberry Corporation, et al. (D. Del. 2017) – representing Maxell, Ltd.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. Blu Products, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2017) – representing Maxell, Ltd.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. Fandango Media, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2017) – representing Maxell, Ltd.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex. 2016) – representing Maxell, Ltd.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2018) – representing Maxell, Ltd.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. Olympus Corporation et al. (D. Del. 2018) – representing Maxell, Ltd.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex. 2016) – representing Maxell, Ltd.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex. 2018) – representing Maxell, Ltd.
  • Olympus Corporation et al v. Maxell, Ltd. (D. Del. 2018) – representing Maxell, Ltd.
  • Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2013) – representing defendant LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
  • Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2013) – representing defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. General Motors LLC (W.D. Tex. 2013) – representing defendant General Motors LLC.
  • Tela Innovations Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al. (D. Del. 2013) – representing defendants LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
  • Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. General Motors LLC (E.D. Tex. 2012) – representing defendant General Motors LLC.
  • Azure Networks LLC et al. v. LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2012) –representing defendants LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
  • Industrial Technology Research Institute v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (D.N.J. 2012) – representing defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • Rovi Corporation et al. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp. et al. (D. Del.) – representing defendants Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc., Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc.
  • Immersion Corporation v. Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. (D. Del. 2012) – representing defendant Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc.
  • LG Display Co. Ltd. v. Obayashi Seikou Co., Ltd. (D.D.C. 2011) – representing plaintiff LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Hyundai Motor Company et al. (D. Del. 2011)(transferred D. Mich. 2013) – representing defendants Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama LLC.
  • Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Kia Motors Corp. et al. (D. Del. 2011)(transferred D. Mich. 2013) –representing defendants Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, Inc., and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia Inc.
  • Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2010) – representing defendant Motorola, Inc.
  • Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. et al. (W.D. Wash. 2010) – representing defendants Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc.
  • Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wisc. 2010) – representing plaintiffs Motorola Mobility, Inc. and General Instrument Corp.
  • Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al. (W.D. Wisc. 2010) – representing defendants and counter-claimants Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc.
  • Motorola Mobility, Inc. et al. v. Apple, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2010) – representing plaintiffs Motorola Mobility, Inc. and General Instrument Corp.
  • Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. et al. v. General Electric Company (W.D. Ar. 2010) – representing plaintiffs Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc.
  • General Electric Company v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. et al. (N.D. Tex. 2010) – representing defendants Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas Inc.
  • General Electric Company, et al. v. Wilkins (E.D. Cal. 2010) – representing movant Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc.
  • General Electric Company v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2009) – representing defendants Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas Inc.
  • JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Syntune, AB et al. (N.D. Cal. 2008) – representing plaintiff JDS Uniphase Corp.
  • Bookham, Inc. v. JDS Uniphase Corporation et al. (N.D. Cal. 2008) – representing defendant JDS Uniphase Corporation.
  • Anvik Corporation v. LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. et al. (S.D.N.Y. 2007) – representing defendants LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and LG.Philips LCD America, Inc.
  • Reiber et al. v. Western Digital Corp. et al. (E.D. Cal. 2007) – representing defendant Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
  • Sidel Canada Inc. v. Krones AG et al. (M.D. Fl. 2007) – representing defendants KHS AG and KHS USA, Inc.
  • Crocs, Inc. v. Australia Unlimited, Inc. (D. Co. 2007) – representing defendant Australia Unlimited, Inc.
  • Crocs, Inc. v. Cheng’s Enterprises, Inc. et al. (D. Co. 2006) – representing defendant Australia Unlimited, Inc.
  • ERBE Electromedizin GMBH et al. v. Canady Technology LLC et al. (W.D. Pa. 2005) – representing defendant Canady Technology LLC.
  • Ampex Corporation v. Eastman Kodak Comp, et al. (D. Del. 2004) – representing plaintiff Ampex Corporation.
  • Verve, LLC v. Verifone, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal. 2004) representing defendant Lipman USA, Inc.
  • Ampex Corporation v. Sony Corporation (D. Del. 2004) – representing plaintiff Ampex Corporation.

Representative Federal Circuit Appeals

  • HTC Corporation et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC, Appeal Nos. 16-1858, 16-1859, 16-1880 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – representing appellants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014) – representing LG Electronics, Inc., Dell Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corporation, L Brands Inc., Newegg Inc., Ninestar Image Tech Limiited, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., SAS Institute, Inc., and Xilinx, Inc. as Amici Curiae.
  • SanDisk Corporation v. Round Rock Research LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) – representing LG Electronics Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dell Inc., Google Inc., Newegg Inc. as Amici Curiae.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Obayashi Seikou Co., Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2014) – representing appellant LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • Industrial Technology Research Institute v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2013) – representing intervenors LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., and LG Display America, Inc.
  • Corus Staal BV v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2009) – representing appellant Corus Staal BV.
  • Corus Staal BV v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2007) – representing appellant Corus Staal BV.
  • Mittal Steel Point v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2007) – representing appellee Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited.
  • Corus Staal BV v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2006) – representing appellant Corus Staal BV.
  • Corus Staal BV v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2005) – representing appellant Corus Staal BV.
  • SKF USA v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2004) – representing appellant SKF USA Inc.
  • Corus Staal BV v. USITC (Fed. Cir. 2003) – representing appellant Corus Staal BV.

Representative Inter Partes Reviews at the USPTO

  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Communications LLC, Case IPR2015-01875 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Communications LLC, Case IPR2015-01874 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-01868 – representing petitioner K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd.
  • K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-01867 – representing petitioner K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd.
  • K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-01866 – representing petitioner K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-01717 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Delaware Display Group LLC, Case IPR2015-01666 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies ULC, Case IPR2015-01620 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case IPR2015-00942 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case IPR2015-00940 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case IPR2015-00939 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case IPR2015-00938 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case IPR2015-00937 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case IPR2015-09392 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case IPR2015-01411 – representing patent owner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case IPR2015-01409 – representing patent owner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC, Case IPR2015-00885 – representing petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Delaware Display Group LLC, Case IPR2015-00506 – representing petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-00497 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Delaware Display Group LLC, Case IPR2015-00496 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-00495 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-00493 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Delaware Display Group LLC, Case IPR2015-00492 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-00490 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-00489 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-00487 – representing petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies ULC, Case IPR2015-00330 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Case IPR2015-00329 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Case IPR2015-00328 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies ULC, Case IPR2015-00327 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies ULC, Case IPR2015-00326 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies ULC, Case IPR2015-00325 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Case IPR2015-00324 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Case IPR2015-00323 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies ULC, Case IPR2015-00322 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies ULC, Case IPR2015-00321 – representing petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. et al. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2014-01362 – representing petitioners LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Delaware Display Group LLC, Case IPR2014-01359 – representing petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2014-01357 – representing petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, Case IPR2014-01318 – representing petitioners LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • NEC Corporation of America et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, Case IPR2014-01136 – representing petitioners LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • NEC Corporation of America et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, Case IPR2014-01135 – representing petitioners LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, Case IPR2014-01134 – representing petitioners LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • NEC Corporation of America et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, Case IPR2014-01133 – representing petitioners LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • NEC Corporation of America et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, Case IPR2014-01131 – representing petitioners LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2014-01097 – representing petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2014-01096 – representing petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2014-01095 – representing petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2014-01094 – representing petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd.
  • LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Case IPR2014-01092 – representing petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd.

Representative Ex Partes Reexaminations at the USPTO

  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case 90-13481 – representing LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case 90-13480 – representing LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case 90-13479 – representing LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case 90-13478 – representing LG Electronics, Inc.
  • LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., Case 90-13477 – representing LG Electronics, Inc.

Representative International Arbitrations

  • Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. et al. v. Dell, Inc. et al., ICDR Case No. 01-15-0004-4328 – representing Mitsubishi Electric Corporation.

Representative Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings

  • Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Italy, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, DOC Inv. Nos. A-475-801, A-412-801, A-427-801, and A-428-801, representing respondents SKF USA Inc., SKF GbmH, SKF (UK) Limited, SKF France S.A., SKF Aerospace France S.A.S., SKF Industrie S.p.A., and Somecat S.p.A.
  • Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, ITC Inv. Nos. 731-TA-344, 391A, 392A, 392C, 393A, 394A, 396, 399A, representing respondents SKF USA Inc., SKF GmbH, SKF France, S.A., Sarma, SKF Industrie S.p.A., and SKF Aeroengine Bearings UK.
  • Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands, DOC Inv. No. A-421-807, representing respondent Corus Staal BV.
  • Hot-Rolled Products from Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine, ITC Inv. Nos. 701TA-404-408 and 731-TA-898-908, representing respondent Corus Staal BV.
  • Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, DOC Inv. No. A-428-840, representing respondents Mitsubishi International Corporation, Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Flensburg GmbH, and Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH.
  • Lightweight Thermal Paper from China, Germany, and Korea, ITC Inv. Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128, representing respondents Mitsubishi International Corporation, Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Flensburg GmbH, and Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH.
  • Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, DOC Inv. No. A-570-956, representing MC Tubular Products, Inc.
  • Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, ITC Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168, representing MC Tubular Products, Inc.
  • Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and China, ITC Inv. Nos. 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1151-1152, representing respondent Mitsubishi International Food Ingredients, Inc.
  • Steel Wire Garment Hangers from China, DOC Inv. No. A-570-918, representing respondents Willert Home Products, Inc. and Willert Home Products (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
  • Steel Wire Garment Hangers from China, ITC Inv. No. 731-TA-1123, representing respondents Willert Home Products, Inc. and Willert Home Products (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
  • Low Enriched Uranium from France, ITC Inv. Nos. 701-TA-409, 731-TA-909, representing petitioners USEC Inc. and United States Enrichment Corporation.
  • Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, DOC Inc. No. A-122-845, A-122-847, representing respondent the Canadian Wheat Board.

Education

Georgetown University Law Center, LLM

Thomas M. Cooley Law School, JD, magna cum laude, Editor, Thomas M. Cooley Law Review

University of North Dakota, BS

Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Michigan

Court

  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals
  • US District Court for the District of Columbia
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • US Court of International Trade
  • Michigan Supreme Court

Memberships

  • American Bar Association
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association - Vice Chair International Trade Committee
  • ITC Trial Lawyers Association
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association – Vice Chair Section 337 Committee
  • Ranked, IAM Patent 1000, ITC and Washington DC Litigation, Nationwide, 2017
  • Client Choice Award, 2017
  • Highly recommended, IAM Patent 1000, ITC: Nationwide, 2016
  • Ranked, IAM Patent 1000, Litigation: DC Metro Area, 2016
  • 2016 Managing Intellectual Property magazine’s “World IP Handbook and Survey” – IP Star
  • 2016 Chambers & Partners Global, International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337)
  • 2016 Chambers & Partners USA, Nationwide – International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337)
  • 2016 Legal 500, Patent Litigation: International Trade Commission - Recognized Practitioner
  • 2015 Named to Trending 40 and Legal Bisnow’s “Trending 40 Lawyers Under 40”
  • Highly recommended, IAM Patent 1000, ITC: Nationwide, 2015
  • Ranked, IAM Patent 1000, Litigation: DC Metro Area, 2015
  • 2015 “Top in the PTAB” by Docket Navigator
  • Ranked, IAM Patent 1000, ITC: Nationwide, 2014
  • Ranked, IAM Patent 1000, Litigation: DC Metro Area, 2014
  • Ranked, IAM Patent 1000, Litigation (ITC): DC Metro Area, 2013
  • Recommended, IAM Patent 1000, International Trade Commission: National, 2013
  • Named in Legal 500 US for Patent Litigation: International Trade Commission, 2013
  • Named Rising Star by Law360 for achievements in Section 337 litigation, 2012-2013