• PDF
  • |
  • |
  • Print

Darcy L. Jones

Partner | Silicon Valley
T (650) 453-5418
F (650) 745-1455

Darcy L. Jones is a member of Kasowitz’s Intellectual Property group, where she practices in the areas of patent and trade secret litigation.

Darcy has considerable lead counsel and trial experience representing clients in diverse and complex matters in all phases of litigation in state and federal courts, from pre-filing investigation through post-trial briefing and appeal. She also has extensive experience in patent infringement litigation involving telecommunications, computer hardware and software, medical devices, electrical and mechanical technologies, and pharmaceuticals. Darcy has appeared in federal courts around the country, including the Eastern District of Texas, Delaware, and the Northern and Central Districts of California.

Notable Representations

  • Verizon in numerous patent infringement matters involving cellular communication hand-offs, cellular phone hotspot technology, data transmission protocols, network extender products, audio communication systems for computer networks and interactive media guides.
  • Google in a significant and rarely achieved victory for patent action defendants involving a motion to transfer venue of Ryujin Fujinomaki vs. Google Inc., et al. from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California.  The decision also permitted Kasowitz clients Motorola, LG, ASUS and Samsung to join in the motion.  The complaint in the action alleges that certain lock features, including Google’s Smart Lock feature, in defendants’ Android-based smartphones and wearables infringed Fujinomaki’s patent. It is very rare for defendants like Google to win motions to transfer venue from Texas to California.
  • Google in successfully securing a complete dismissal in a patent infringement challenge brought by Data Engine Technologies in the District of Delaware.  Data Engine alleged that Google Sheets infringed patents which purportedly covered the Quattro Pro for Windows® spreadsheet program sold by Borland Software Corporation in the 1990s.  Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark found that the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and thus invalid, and granted Google’s motion to dismiss.  This matter originally began as a six-patent case against Google, which Kasowitz successfully reduced to three patents.
  • LG in a four-patent infringement case involving USB chargers in the Eastern District of Texas.  Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems licensed the patents-in-suit from Blackberry, and assert infringement against several high-profile companies, including Samsung, Huawei and ZTE.
  • Adobe Systems in a patent infringement matter alleging numerous high-profile companies, including technology giants Apple and Hewlett Packard, violated PanTaurus LLC’s patent describing a secure computer system.
  • Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI) in a patent infringement action as part of a joint defense group that included Staples, L.L. Bean, Dillard’s, Drugstore.com, HSN, J.C. Penney, and Rhapsody.  All other defendants settled in June 2014, and REI prepared for trial as the sole remaining defendant.  Shortly before trial, REI settled the case.
  • Dr. G. David Jang in successfully securing a jury trial verdict in favor of Dr. Jang against Boston Scientific Corporation for infringing Dr. Jang’s patent on a stent he invented for treatment of certain atherosclerotic lesions and for breaching its contractual obligations to pay him royalties.  The royalties due to Dr. Jang, together with prejudgment interest, amount to more than $200 million.  The two-and-a-half-week trial in federal court in the Central District of California followed a successful appeal by Kasowitz, after replacing prior counsel, to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court’s adverse claim construction ruling and remanded the action for trial.
  • Watson Pharmaceuticals (now Teva Pharmaceuticals) in a Hatch-Waxman trial case relating to Aplenzin®.
  • Teva Pharmaceuticals in two trials of Hatch-Waxman cases relating to Prevacid® products.
  • United Promotions in trade secret litigation and arbitration involving quaternary ammonium products.
  • Teva Pharmaceuticals in summary judgment in a case involving Crestor®.
  • Bains Ultra in litigation involving trademark counterfeiting and patent and copyright infringement relating to jetted bathtub products.

Related Information