)
Jeremy Anapol focuses on patent litigation and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings involving computer hardware and software. He has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in cases throughout the country. For defendants, Jeremy’s litigation teams have invalidated numerous patents in cases before trial courts, the Patent Office, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court. For plaintiffs, Jeremy’s teams have secured multi-million dollar recoveries by settlement, arbitration award, and jury verdict. The Experience section below highlights several of these successes.
Jeremy's cases have focused on a variety of technologies including computer security, natural language processing, microphone arrays, ecommerce, wireless locks, magnetic resonance imaging, and non-invasive monitoring of blood constituents. He has also assisted with the preparation and prosecution of numerous patents involving video compression, voice recognition, audio signal processing, wireless asset tracking, data mining, and cloud computing.
Before joining the firm in 2012, Jeremy worked as a software engineer developing web applications. During law school, he spent a semester working for the Honorable R. Gary Klausner at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Education
University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA)
(J.D., 2012)
University of California - Berkeley (CAL)
(B.S. Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, 2007)
Masimo Corp. v. True Wearables Inc., No. 8:18-cv-2001 (C.D. Cal.)
Jeremy was part of a team that represented Masimo in a trade secret case involving technology for noninvasively measuring blood oxygen saturation. In addition to trade secrets, the case also included claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. As part of the trial team, Jeremy focused on the presentation of evidence proving the fiduciary duty claim. Masimo prevailed on this claim, in addition to the breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation claims. The Court issued a permanent injunction barring the defendants from selling their product that used Masimo’s trade secrets.
Vocalife Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-123 (E.D. Tex.), No. 2021-1937 (Fed. Cir.)
Jeremy was part of a team that defended Amazon.com in a patent infringement case against Amazon’s Echo smart speakers. Jeremy drafted Amazon’s briefing and presented oral argument for Amazon on claim construction, obtaining favorable constructions of two claim terms on which Amazon based its non-infringement defenses. Jeremy also drafted a successful motion for partial summary judgment that eliminated the bulk of the plaintiff’s alleged damages before trial. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Jeremy’s team secured a complete victory by prevailing on non-infringement.
StrikeForce v. SecureAuth, No. 17-4314 (C.D. Cal.), No. 18-1470 (Fed. Cir.)
Jeremy was part of a team that defended SecureAuth in a patent infringement case where the plaintiff asserted 43 claims from three patents. The plaintiff had asserted one or more of the patents against numerous other defendants in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia. Jeremy drafted a case-dispositive motion to dismiss, convincing the court to invalidate all asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 prior to claim construction. SecureAuth was the last defendant to be sued on the asserted patents, but the first to prevail. The plaintiff appealed to the Federal Circuit, where Jeremy drafted the appellate brief and presented oral argument for SecureAuth. The Federal Circuit affirmed SecureAuth's victory in its entirety. The plaintiff petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, and Jeremy drafted SecureAuth’s opposition to that petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition, making SecureAuth’s victory final.
Personalized Media Communications v. Amazon.com, No. 13-1608 (D. Del.), No. 2015-2008 (Fed. Cir.)
Amazon.com v. Personalized Media Communications, IPR2014-1527, 1528, 1530, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534 (P.T.A.B.) Jeremy was part of a team that defended Amazon.com in a patent infringement case where the plaintiff asserted 58 claims from seven patents. He drafted three rounds of briefs in support of a case-dispositive motion for judgment on the pleadings, convincing the court to invalidate all seven patents and enter judgment in Amazon’s favor on all 58 claims prior to claim construction. In parallel with the district court litigation, the team also filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of the seven asserted patents at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Jeremy argued before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the final IPR hearing. The board invalidated all seven patents in its final written decisions. Jeremy was also part of the team that represented Amazon in the patentee's appeal of the district court's decision to the Federal Circuit. In that appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in Amazon's favor.
Arbitration for Confidential Client - Medical Device Industry
Jeremy was part of a team that obtained a multi-million dollar arbitration award for breach of contract on behalf of a firm client in the medical device industry. At the arbitration hearing, he cross-examined several witnesses including the defendant’s chief technology officer and principal software engineer, eliciting a crucial admission that the arbitrators relied on to decide the case in favor of the firm’s client.
Masimo v. Philips Electronics, No. 09-0080 (D. Del.)
Jeremy was part of a team that represented Masimo in the antitrust phase of a case against Philips. In an earlier phase of the case relating to patent infringement, Masimo won a jury verdict of more than $466 million. The antitrust phase of the case was resolved by a settlement in which Philips agreed to pay Masimo $300 million.
NeuroGrafix v. Toshiba Medical Systems, No. 13-2432 (D. Mass.)
Jeremy was part of a team that defended Toshiba Medical in multidistrict litigation relating to MRI systems. Jeremy argued on behalf of all defendants at the claim construction hearing, addressing several disputed terms, and the Court ruled in favor of the defendants on all of those terms. Jeremy also deposed one of the named inventors of the asserted patent, eliciting an admission that he had not invented the technology accused in the case. Instead, he admitted that the accused technology was invented by a team at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Jeremy prepared a petition to the NIH seeking to depose the lead scientist from the NIH team. The NIH determined that allowing the deposition would promote the interests of the United States of America and therefore granted the petition. The case was resolved by settlement.
Commvault Systems v. Realtime Data, CBM2017-00061 (P.T.A.B.)
Jeremy was part of a team that prepared a petition for CBM review of a patent asserted against firm client Commvault Systems. Jeremy drafted arguments for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and § 112. The patentee provided no response on the merits of the invalidity arguments, and instead disclaimed 15 claims of the challenged patent.
Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Assa Abloy AB, IPR2015-1562 (P.T.A.B.) | Assa Abloy AB v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., No. 2017-1817 (Fed. Cir.)
Jeremy was part of a team that represented Spectrum Brands in an IPR proceeding against competitor Assa Abloy. Jeremy drafted the IPR petition and subsequent briefing after the IPR was instituted. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found 16 claims unpatentable for obviousness in its Final Written Decision. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision as to all claims at issue.
Articles
Contributor, Knobbe Martens Section 101 Blog
- The Impact of Fact Issues on Patent Eligibility after Berkheimer
- How Unpredictable is the Alice Analysis?
- Recent Federal Circuit Decisions Emphasize Effect of Factual Questions on Patent Eligibility
- Even Non-Obvious Patent Claims May Lack Inventive Concepts
- The Role of Analogies in the Alice Analysis
- Will Courts Consider Evidence of Patent Eligibility?
- Federal Circuit Judges Disagree Over Contours of Section 101
Contributor, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog
-
A Leap of Good Faith: When Cries of “They Copied Us” Cannot Be Stopped
-
Failure to Convert Dismissal Into Summary Judgment Deemed Harmless
-
Expert Testimony Inconsistent With Agreed-Upon Claim Construction Is Properly Stricken
-
The Patent Office Need Not Consider Requests for Director Review of IPR Institution Decisions
- Famous Trademark Not Abandoned After Original Owner’s Bankruptcy
- Construction That Eliminates Entire Scope of Dependent Claims Should Be Avoided
- PTO Director’s Estoppel Decision Ending Reexam Is Subject to Judicial Review
- First Amendment Trumps Statutory Ban on Trademark Registration
- Lack of Written-Description Support for Claimed Ranges Makes Parent Application Prior Art
- Prosecution History Disclaimer and Estoppel Lead To Noninfringement
- “Army of Citation Footnotes Crouching in a Field of Jargon” Fails to Withstand Summary Judgment
- Federal Circuit Finds No Constitutional Defect in Appointment of TTAB Judges
- Arguments to the Patent Office That Contradict Information Submitted to the FDA Support Inference of Deceptive Intent
- A General Warning Against Infringement Is Not Actual Notice of Infringement
- Clear Intrinsic Evidence Forecloses Extrinsic Evidence of Special Meaning
- Supreme Court Saves IPRs by Allowing PTO Director to Review Patent Judges’ Decisions
- Federal Circuit Remands CBM Appeals Under Arthrex, Leaves Forum Selection Dispute for Another Day
- Inter Partes Reexam Can Trigger Issue Preclusion
- Distribution of Software Alone Does Not Infringe a Claim That Requires Hardware
- Claims to Printed Matter Are Patent-Ineligible Only if They Lack an Inventive Concept
- Federal Court Allowed to Defer to State Court on Contract Dispute That Raised Patent Validity Questions
- An “Agreement to Agree” Is Unenforceable Under Washington State Law
- Federal Circuit Rejects Claim Construction That Contradicts Dependent Claims
- Imaginary Slice of Accused Product Failed to Satisfy Structural Claim Limitation
- Inventor Removed From Patent May Be Restored Due to Claim Construction
- Substitute Claims in IPR Are Subject to Section 101 Challenges
- Federal Circuit Affirms Use of Common Sense for Obviousness Determination
- Preamble Found Limiting Where It Supplied Antecedent Basis for Other Claim Limitations
- No Specific Threat of Infringement Litigation Needed to Establish Standing for IPR Appeal
- Unconstitutionally Appointed Patent Judges Cannot Decide Appeals From Inter Partes Reexaminations
- Facts in Complaint That Arguably Show Patent Ownership Are Sufficient to Confer Standing
- Same-Party and New-Issue Joinder Impermissible in IPRs
- Non-Expert Testimony on Obviousness Is Inadmissible
- Drug Treatment May Be Obvious Even When FDA Is Unconvinced It Is Safe and Effective
- Patentee’s Lexicography Negates Infringement Despite Defendant’s Use of Claim Term in Product Literature
- Large Quantity of Routine Experimentation Can Be “Undue Experimentation”
- Copying May Show Nonobviousness Even If No Specific Product Is Copied
- Federal Circuit Applies Collateral Estoppel and Avoids Antitrust Issues
- Amended Complaint May Relate Back to Original Complaint Despite Asserting Different Patents
- Parroting Language of Venue Statute Is Not Enough to Avoid Dismissal
- Broad Claim Language and Unpredictability in the Art Lead to Non-Enablement
- Federal Circuit Rejects Written Description Analysis That Ignored Relevant Factors
- Reissue Patent Claims Not “Clearly and Unequivocally” Supported in Original Patent Are Invalid
- Years-Old R&D Investments Satisfy Domestic Industry Requirement
- Broad description in specification defeats patent owner’s bid for narrow construction
- TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT’L, INC. V. IBG LLC
- NATURAL ALTERNATIVES INT’L, INC. v. CREATIVE COMPOUNDS, LLC
- MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
- PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORP. V. OFFICE DEPOT INC. ET AL.