Jonathan K. Waldrop, the managing partner of the firm’s Silicon Valley office, represents industry-leading companies in patent and trademark litigation involving interactive web technologies, video-on-demand telecommunications, cable technology, computer-assisted sales processes, medical devices, cooking ovens, gaming systems and complex financial transactions. He is also experienced in handling commercial and antitrust litigation matters.
Jon’s clients include Google, LG, ASUS, Uber and Adobe, world-leading global technology companies, and Cox Communications, the third largest cable television provider in the United States. He has acted as lead trial counsel in many cases for his clients and has a history of achieving favorable jury verdicts, including his representation of Google and YouTube in a case with such broad potential implications that Wired.com declared, “Texas Jury Strikes Down Patent Troll’s Claim to Own the Interactive Web.” In a separate patent litigation, Jon achieved a verdict touted as the largest verdict of the year in the district in which it was handed down.
Jon is regularly recognized in The Legal 500, The Best Lawyers in America, and Super Lawyers. He was named an “Intellectual Property Trailblazer” by The National Law Journal and a “Top Intellectual Property Lawyer in California” by The Daily Journal, both of which annually honor individuals who have advanced their intellectual property practice through the use of innovative, creative and winning strategies. Jon also earned the National Institute for Trial Advocacy’s “Master Advocate” designation, and is a fellow in the Litigation Counsel of America’s Trial Lawyer Honorary Society, in which less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers are invited to join.
Work Highlights
- Uber in securing dismissal of a patent infringement case alleging that Uber’s user application infringed Hailo Technologies’ automated dispatch and payment system patent.
- Google in securing summary judgment based on non-infringement and further granting Google’s motion monetary sanctions in a patent infringement suit brought in the Southern District of Texas by SuperSpeed Software, alleging that “Google Docs” and “Google Drive” infringed two data access patents that SuperSpeed incorporated into software used to accelerate the performance of computers linked to a shared-disk network.
- Google in successfully securing a complete dismissal in a six-patent infringement case 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. The court found that the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and thus invalid, and granted Google’s motion to dismiss.
- Google, Motorola, LG, and ASUS in a patent infringement case alleging Android-based smartphones and wearables infringed a device security patent. Kasowitz won a motion to transfer venue, from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, following a one-day evidentiary hearing on behalf of all clients.
- Google in a patent infringement case alleging that Google Drive infringed Hall Data’s database synchronization patent. Kasowitz won a motion to transfer venue, from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, on behalf of Google.
- LG in a seven-patent infringement case involving USB chargers in the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems licensed the patents-in-suit from Blackberry, and asserts infringement against several high-profile companies, including Huawei and ZTE.
- Adobe customers (e.g. Bed Bath & Beyond, QVC, J.C. Penney, Kohl’s Corporation and Dillard’s) in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of Tejas’s image file formatting patent. By utilizing the customer-suit exception, Kasowitz filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California against Tejas on behalf of Adobe. This rarely utilized exception allowed Kasowitz to secure a walk-away victory on behalf of Adobe and its customers.
- Dr. G. David Jang in a successful jury trial verdict against medical device manufacturer Boston Scientific 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 on its sales of the stent.
- Google and YouTube in a patent infringement action brought by Eolas and the University of California in the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler). Kasowitz achieved a jury verdict of patent invalidity on behalf of Google, YouTube, and the joint defense group, defeating claims for hundreds of millions in damages as well as injunctive relief against interactive web pages. This verdict has been hailed in headlines worldwide, including “Texas Jury Strikes Down Patent Troll’s Claim to Own the Interactive Web,” Wired.com and “Eolas patent trial: Relax! The Internet is saved,” Toronto Star.
- Cox Communications in patent litigation related to providing video-on-demand services over selected commercial telephone networks in the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas.
- Cox Communications in two suits brought by Rembrandt in the Eastern District of Texas and other districts on nine patents related to the technology involved in the delivery of cable services.
- Teva, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, in a Hatch-Waxman case relating to Crestor®, with market at issue in excess of $2.5 billion.
- Teva in an antitrust case relating to U.S. patents covering Risperidone®.
- DaimlerChrysler in an action involving patents concerning computer-assisted sales processes in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Cox Communications in actions involving patents related to video-on-demand services and domain name server systems in the Eastern District of Texas and Delaware.
- Zodiac Pool Care in an action involving patents related to pool cleaner technology in the Southern District of Florida.
- Plaintiff-inventor in a patent infringement matter as lead counsel relating to angioplasty catheters. The case resulted in a jury verdict for the plaintiff-inventor with an award of over $15 million, the largest jury verdict in the Western District of Oklahoma that year. Plaintiff as lead trial counsel in a fraud and breach of contract action in Georgia state court resulting in plaintiff’s verdict and award of attorney’s fees.
- Plaintiff as lead trial counsel in a fraud and breach of contract action in Georgia state court resulting in plaintiff’s verdict and award of attorney’s fees.
- Plaintiff as lead trial counsel in a fraud and breach of contract action in Georgia state court resulting in plaintiff’s verdict and award of attorney’s fees.
Media