Overview
Clients turn to Adam Powell to handle their most technically complex issues in the medical device, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology industries. He is co-chair of Knobbe Martens’ Antitrust group and has been recognized by the Daily Journal as among the publication’s “Top Trade Secrets Lawyers” honorees.
Adam has obtained jury verdicts totaling $1.5 billion for plaintiffs and defeated about $500 million of claims against defendants. In February 2026, he played a pivotal role in helping long-term client Applied Medical secure a $381 million jury verdict in an antitrust case against Medtronic. After a nearly three-week trial, the jury found Medtronic to have violated the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the California Cartwright Act.
Adam has also helped longstanding client Masimo Corporation protect its technology for over a decade. In November 2025, Adam represented Masimo at a patent trial that resulted in a $634 million jury verdict against Apple, which was the largest patent infringement verdict of 2025. He also helped Masimo secure and defend an exclusion order against Apple before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Adam also represented Masimo in an earlier patent trial against Philips in which the jury awarded $466 million to Masimo and rejected Philips’ infringement claims seeking $169 million. Post trial, Adam was responsible for defending the verdict against Philips’ antitrust counterclaims alleging patent misuse, monopolization, and tying. The litigation eventually settled with Philips paying Masimo $300 million and agreeing to a multi-year joint marketing and sales program in which Philips would integrate Masimo technologies in its patient monitors.
Adam also has a proven record of successfully resolving complex trade secret cases. In connection with those cases, Adam has managed dozens of computer forensic investigations of former employees alleged to have stolen trade secrets from their employer. In one trial, he and the Knobbe team proved two former employees downloaded and took thousands of computer files to their new employer. The Court found the employees engaged in “despicable conduct,” justifying an award of punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a permanent injunction. In another case, he proved the defendant engaged in extensive spoliation of evidence, resulting in a terminating sanction, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and a permanent injunction.
Adam is an active member of the legal community. He serves as the Vice President of the San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association. He is a founding Master of the San Diego IP American Inn of Court and serves as a Master of the J. Clifford Wallace Inn of Court. Previously, Adam served on the Board of Governors for the San Diego Chapter of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers for several years.
Education
- University of California - Hastings - School of Law (J.D., 2010), magna cum laude, Thurston Society, Hastings Law Journal, Hastings Moot Court
- University of California - Santa Barbara (UCSB) (B.S. Chemical Engineering, 2007)
Representative Experience
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. (C.D. Cal)
Represents Applied Medical in antitrust trial involving alleged anticompetitive bundling and exclusive dealing. Applied Medical alleged that Medtronic monopolized the market for advanced bipolar devices, which are surgical devices that seal blood vessels during surgery. After a nearly three-week trial, the jury awarded $381 million in damages and found that Medtronic violated the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the California Cartwright Act.
Masimo Corp. v. Apple, Inc. (CD Cal)
Represents Masimo against Apple in several forums, including the Central District of California (CD Cal), District of Delaware (D. Del), and International Trade Commission (ITC). In the CD Cal case, Masimo asserted patents covering technology to save energy while using light to measure pulse rate. After an eight-day trial, the jury found the Apple Watch infringed Masimo’s patent and awarded more than $634 million in damages.
In re Certain Light-Based Physiological Measurement Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1276 (U.S. International Trade Commission)
Represents Masimo in a patent infringement investigation against Apple at the ITC that resulted in an import ban of certain Apple Watches. Those Apple Watches, introduced after the pandemic started, included a “Blood Oxygen” feature to give a reading purporting to correspond to a user’s oxygen saturation. The parties tried the case in June 2022. In January 2023, an ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Apple Watch infringes Masimo patents on technology for measuring oxygen in the blood and recommended exclusion of these watches. In October 2023, the ITC released its final determination and issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against the Apple Watches at issue. In January 2024, the ban went into effect.
Apple v. Masimo, C.A. Nos. 22-cv-1377-JLH and 22-cv-1378-JLH (D. Del)
Defends Masimo against Apple’s patent infringement claims and asserts counterclaims on behalf of Masimo against Apple. As a result of Masimo’s pending CD Cal case and Masimo’s success in securing an import ban on certain Apple Watch models (both discussed above), Masimo faces retaliatory litigation alleging that the company copied the Apple Watch. Adam played a major role in bringing counterclaims alleging antitrust violations, patent infringement, and false advertising claims against Apple. Adam also assisted in securing a complete trial victory for Masimo on all claims against its current products.
Masimo Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America Corp. and Philips Medizin Systeme Boblingen GmbH. (D. Del.)
Represented Masimo in a three-week jury trial involving multiple patents on pulse oximeter medical devices. Obtained a jury verdict of over $466 million for Philips’ infringement of two Masimo patents. The jury also rejected Philips’s infringement claims seeking $169 million. After the patent trial, Adam was responsible for defending Masimo against Philips’ antitrust counterclaims alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization, conspiracy, group boycott, tying, and restraint of trade. The parties settled with Philips paying Masimo $300 million and agreeing to integrate Masimo technology in its patient monitors.
Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Masimo Corp. (C.D. Cal.)
Defended potential class action seeking about $300 million for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act relating to facsimiles about medical devices. Successfully opposed class certification, obtained finding that class counsel and class representatives were inadequate to represent the class, obtained Ninth Circuit denial of Rule 23(f) request for interlocutory appeal, and obtained partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ individual claims.
In re Sotera Wireless, Inc. (S.D. Cal. Bankr.)
Represented Masimo at a bench trial in bankruptcy court on a matter alleging two former Masimo employees stole trade secrets and took them to their new employer. The bankruptcy court found clear and convincing evidence of willful and malicious misappropriation, justifying an award of punitive damages and a permanent injunction. The court enjoined the debtor from using any of the misappropriated materials or the employees in the product design process.
Uretek USA, Inc. v. EagleLIFT, Inc. (S.D. Tex.)
Represented EagleLIFT in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, trademark infringement, false advertising, and trade secret misappropriation. Primarily responsible for asserting patent misuse defenses and antitrust counterclaims alleging tying, improper covenants not to compete, exclusive grantback assignments, and other restrictive covenants. Obtained a settlement after EagleLIFT asserted its antitrust counterclaims.
Masimo Corp. et al. v. True Wearables, Inc., (C.D. Cal.)
Represented Masimo Corporation against a former executive, Marcelo Lamego, and his company True Wearables for trade secret misappropriation and other claims. Obtained a preliminary injunction, ordering Lamego and True Wearables to take all steps necessary to prevent the publication of confidential information. The Federal Circuit affirmed in January 2022. The team then prevailed at a bench trial in March 2022, securing a ruling that Lamego misappropriated trade secrets, breached his fiduciary duty, and violated his employment agreements. The Court ordered Lamego to abandon patent applications containing Masimo trade secrets, return Masimo confidential information, and cease selling True Wearables’ products.
I-Flow LLC et al. v. Progressive Medical, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
Represented I-Flow in patent litigation involving elastomeric infusion pump technology. Obtained a settlement in the middle of a jury trial.
Masimo Corp. v. Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Tech. Co. Ltd. and Mindray DS USA (C.D. Cal.)
Represented Masimo in patent, antitrust, and contract litigation. Had a primary role in defending Masimo against antitrust claims alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization, conspiracy, group boycott, tying and restraint of trade. Obtained a settlement on the eve of trial.
Rexel USA, Inc. v. Main Electric Supply Co. (D. Ariz.)
Represented Main Electric in litigation alleging violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, and other torts. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case after Knobbe defeated an early motion for temporary restraining order.
C-Suite Media, Inc. v. C-Suite Network (C.D. Cal.)
Represented C-Suite Network in a trademark infringement suit involving defendants’ marks and slogans as used in their C-Level executive services. After successfully moving to dismiss some of the causes of action and defendants, the matter was resolved through settlement and dismissed.
Recognition
Awards & Honors
- Named to Benchmark Litigation “40 & Under” List (2024 – 2026)
- Named a “Leading Litigator – IP Litigation, Antitrust” in the 2026 edition of Lawdragon’s “500 Leading Litigators in America” guide
- Named to Daily Journal’s “Top 40 Under 40” 2024 list
- Named among 2024 Leaders of Influence in Law by San Diego Business Journal
- Named to the Daily Journal‘s “Top Trade Secrets Lawyers” 2023 list
- Named to the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch guide, which “recognizes lawyers who are earlier in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice” for Antitrust Law (2022 – 2025)
News & Insights
Articles
Papers and Articles
Adam Powell and Daniel Hughes, “How Generative AI is Impacting Trade Secret Protection,” Daily Journal (October 2024).
Adam Powell and Daniel Hughes, “Protecting Company Secrets After the FTC’s Noncompete Rule,” The Recorder (July 2024).
Readily Ascertainable: How California Provides More Certain Trade Secret Protection, Association of Business Trial Lawyers (December 2022).
Adam Powell and Stephen Larson, FTC v. Endo Pharms., Inc.: The D.C. District Court “Treads [the] Tenuous Line Between Patent and Antitrust Laws” to Reject the FTC’s Challenge of an Exclusive License That Allegedly Discouraged Competition, AIPLA IP Antitrust News (May 2022).
Adam Powell and Stephen Larson, Trademark Modernization Act Could Reshape Litigation, Law360 (February 2021).
Adam Powell and Stephen Larson, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Par Sterile Prods, LLC: Unasserted Patents May Break the Chain of Causation Required for Antitrust Injury, AIPLA IP Antitrust News (January 2021).
Adam Powell, Benchmark Legislation: A Measured Approach in the Fight Against Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals, 61 Hastings L.J. 749 (2010).
Adam Powell, KSR Fallout: Questions of Law Based on Findings of Fact and the Continuing Problem of Hindsight Bias, 1 Hastings Sci. and Tech. L.J. 241 (2009).
Adam Powell, Erin Blake, & Kris Kokotaylo, Brief for the Respondent, 26 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 321 (2009).
Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog
Adam Powell, To Limit or Not to Limit: What Is the Basis of Your Prior Art Distinction During Prosecution?, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, The Mere Presence of Patent Issues in a Contract Dispute Does Not Create Federal Jurisdiction, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, A Patentee Cannot Circumvent the Marking Requirement by Proving Separate Infringement of Method Claims, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, Publication Does Not Necessarily Defeat Joint Inventorship, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, The Federal Circuit May Not Award Attorney Fees for Work Performed During an IPR, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, IPR Petitioners May Not Raise Appointments Clause Challenges Under Arthrex, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, Finite Methods as a Ground for Obviousness, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, Patent Owners Cannot Sue the Government for Patent Infringement as a Fifth Amendment Taking, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, Do Not Bank on a Bank Not Being a “Person” Under the AIA, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, Claims Including Computer Speed and Efficiency Improvements May Still Be Ineligible Under Section 101, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, A Litigation Position May Be Objectively Unreasonable Even If the Court Denies Summary Judgment, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2020).
Adam Powell, “Exceptional Case” Findings Must Consider The Full Case, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2019).
Adam Powell, New Arguments Presented for the First Time During PTAB Oral Hearings Are Not Always Waived, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2019)
Adam Powell, Accused Infringer’s Ornamental Logo May Defeat Design Patent Infringement Claim, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2019)
Adam Powell, Subsequent Examination After RCE and Interference Proceeding Are Not PTO Delay, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2019)
Adam Powell, Corresponding Structure in the Specification Does Not Render a Means-Plus-Function Term Structural, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (2019)
Podcast
Adam Powell, Knobbe Martens Talks Trade Secrets , Medical Product Outsourcing (July 2021)
