Overview
Joshua is a nationally recognized attorney who helps his clients protect their investments in technology and intellectual property through strategic litigation and arbitration. He represents innovators and intellectual property owners to stop infringement and has recovered over $100 million in damages on behalf of such owners. He also helps defendants accused of infringement secure complete victories by invalidating the asserted intellectual property, proving noninfringement, and recovering attorneys’ fees.
Joshua is co-chair of Knobbe’s Medical Device Litigation practice and has extensive experience advising medical device companies at all stages of growth. He has litigated cases involving a wide range of medical technologies, including cardiovascular devices such as heart valves and valve repair devices, vascular technologies including stents, stent grafts, and thrombectomy systems, spinal treatments such as spinal implants and ablation catheters, respiratory devices such as laryngeal masks, and patient monitors such as pulse oximeters. Joshua also counsels his medical devices clients on their patent portfolios and intellectual property agreements, including licensing agreements, assignments, and nondisclosure agreements, and helps guide clients through intellectual property due diligence for investments and public offerings.
Joshua litigates cases in courts all over the country, including in popular intellectual property venues like the Northern and Central Districts of California, the District of Delaware, and the Eastern District of Texas. He is also recognized as a leading specialist in contentious proceedings before United States Patent and Trademark Office, including inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs). Joshua has also defended and challenged district court and Patent Office decisions numerous times before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has experience coordinating U.S. litigation with co-pending cases around the world.
In addition to his extensive medical device experience, Joshua also represents clients in other industries, including electronics and semiconductor, software and information technology, chemicals and industrial materials, oil and gas, construction and home improvement, and sporting goods and recreation. Regardless of the technology, Joshua utilizes his engineering background to deliver strategic and effective litigation services.
Joshua is a member of Knobbe’s Executive Committee and the prior chair of Knobbe’s Recruiting Committee.
Education
- Duke University School of Law (J.D., 2006), cum laude, Executive Editor - Duke Law & Technology Review
- University of Washington (UW) (B.S. Chemical Engineering, 2001), with distinction
Representative Matters
Inari Medical v. Imperative Care (N.D. Cal., PTAB 2024)
Defending Imperative Care in district court litigation involving aspiration thrombectomy technology. Successfully obtained an order denying Inari Medical’s request for preliminary injunction. Also representing Imperative Care in the co-pending IPRs challenging the validity of Inari Medical’s patents before the PTAB.
Aortic Innovations v. Edwards Lifesciences II (D. Del., PTAB)
Defending Edwards Lifesciences in district court litigation involving heart valves. Also represented Edwards in related IPRs challenging the validity of Aortic Innovations’ patents.
EMKinetics v. Cala Health (D. Del., PTAB)
Represented Cala Health in district court litigation and four IPR proceedings challenging the validity of EMKinetics’ patents related to stimulation devices. Obtained two final written decisions invalidating the challenged claims. Following the final written decisions, the parties reached a settlement resolving the district court litigation and remaining IPRs.
Aortic Innovations v. Edwards Lifesciences (D. Del., PTAB), aff’d (Fed. Cir.)
Defended Edwards Lifesciences in district court litigation and related IPR proceedings challenging the validity of Aortic Innovations’ patents related to heart valves. In the IPRs, obtained disclaimers and final written decisions rendering many of the asserted claims unpatentable. In the district court, obtained a claim construction that resulted in a final judgment of noninfringement. Argued successfully to obtain affirmance of the claim construction on appeal.
Apple v. Masimo (PTAB), aff’d (Fed. Cir.)
Defended Masimo in two IPRs filed by Apple challenging Masimo’s patents related to low-power patient monitors. Achieved final written decisions in both IPRs upholding the validity of Masimo’s patents. Argued successfully to obtain affirmance on appeal.
Edwards Lifesciences v. Cardiovalve (PTAB), aff’d (Fed. Cir.)
Represented Edwards Lifesciences in IPRs challenging the validity of a Cardiovalve patent. Achieved final written decision on behalf of the client finding all challenged claims invalid. Argued successfully to obtain affirmance on appeal.
Spinal Elements v. Spectrum Spine IP Holdings (PTAB)
Represented Spinal Elements in a PGR proceeding challenging the validity of a Spectrum Spine patent relating to spinal implants. Successfully obtained a final written decision finding all challenged claims invalid.
Galaxy Oil v. Ameeti (C.D. Cal.)
Represented Galaxy Oil in district court litigation involving claims for violation of computer fraud and abuse act, conversion, trespass, and breach of contract relating to company software and web services. Successfully obtained a preliminary injunction requiring the transfer of ownership of certain web registrations to Galaxy Oil and the return of other property. Following entry of the preliminary injunction, the parties reached a settlement.
Vocalife v. Amazon.com (E.D. Tex.)
Defended Amazon.com in district court litigation involving patents relating to beamforming technology and allegedly covering the Amazon Echo products. Also represented Amazon.com in IPRs before the PTAB challenging the Vocalife product. The jury trial resulted in minimal damages, an award subsequently overturned on appeal so the client paid no damages.
Edwards Lifesciences v. Abbott Cardiovascular Systems (C.D. Cal., PTAB)
Represented Edwards Lifesciences in asserting patents against Abbott’s transcatheter mitral clipping device (MitraClip) for repairing the mitral heart valve. Also represented Edwards in IPRs before the PTAB challenging the patentability of several Abbott patents. The parties ultimately reached a global settlement of this worldwide dispute.
Boston Scientific v. Edwards Lifesciences (C.D. Cal., PTAB)
Defended Edwards Lifesciences in a case involving eight patents asserted against delivery systems and crimpers used for implanting Edwards’ transcatheter heart valves. Also represented Edwards in the IPRs before the PTAB challenging the validity of Boston’s patents. After filing the IPR petitions against the patents, the Court stayed the case pending the final disposition of all IPRs, and the parties ultimately reached a settlement of their global dispute.
CardiAQ Valve Technologies v. Neovasc (D. Mass.), aff'd (Fed. Circ.)
Represented CardiAQ in trade secret misappropriation case relating to medical device technology, resulting in $70M jury verdict. CardiAQ designed a transcatheter mitral valve replacement device that was first ever to be placed in humans. CardiAQ hired Defendant to help assemble prototypes under an NDA. Defendant’s lead engineer began designing a directly competing device while working on CardiAQ’s prototypes, but decided not to tell CardiAQ as their relationship continued for six more months, during which CardiAQ shared numerous confidential designs. The court found Defendant’s misappropriation willful and further awarded CardiAQ $21M in enhanced damages, and over $20M in interest for a total judgment of $112M. In September 2017, the judgment was affirmed entirely and was satisfied.
Recognition
Awards & Honors
- Named a “Life Sciences Star” for Patent Litigation in the Legal Media Group’s (LMG) “LMG Life Sciences” Guide (2023 – 2025)
- Named a “Leading Litigator – IP Litigation” in the 2026 edition of Lawdragon’s “500 Leading Litigators in America” guide
- Recognized for outstanding work in patent law in the Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) “Patent 1000 Guide” for Litigation (2025)
- Named to the Thomson Reuters “Stand-Out Lawyer” list, which recognizes lawyers identified by senior in-house counsel and legal buyers worldwide as top professionals they have worked with in recent years.” (2025)
- Named OC Innovator by the LA Times Magazine (2024)
- Named to Short List for Post-Grant Proceedings Attorney of the Year by LMG Life Sciences (2023-2024)
Affiliations
Orange County Bar Association
Association of Business Trial Lawyers
- Former Board Member and Public Service Co-Chair
Federal Bar Association
California Lawyers Association
News & Insights
Articles
“The Answer & Other Responsive Filings,” Chapter 6 in Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook and Related Supplements published by the American Bar Association (2010-present, 2nd-5th Editions)
“Do You Feel Like I Do? – Advocating Patent Cases With Emotion,” American Intellectual Property Law Association (Spring Meeting 2010), co-author.
“The Answer and Other Responsive Filings,” Chapter 5 in Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook Cumulative Supplement (2ed. BNA Books 2007-2009), co-author.
“Changing Legal Landscape for Patent Trolls,” IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer (October 2008), co-author.
“The Supreme Court Takes on Patent Law,” Side Bar, Federal Litigation Section of the Federal Bar Association (Summer 2007), co-author.
“A Supreme End to Patent Trolls?” Orange County Lawyer, The Orange County Bar Association (August 2007), co-author.
Willful Infringement and the Evidentiary Value of Opinion Letters after Knorr-Bremse v. Dana, 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0005 (2005).
Speeches & Seminars
“Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege,” Knobbe Martens MCLE-a-thon (2024)
“Privilege for In-House Counsel,” Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) Webcast (2022)
Sargon and Daubert Motions, Association of Business Trial Lawyers (2020)
“Boilerplate Contract Provisions That Can Bite You in IP Litigation,” Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) Webcast (2018)
