Jeremy Anapol focuses on patent litigation and post-grant proceedings involving computer hardware and software. He also has experience representing clients in antitrust cases, multidistrict litigation, covered business method (CBM) review and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
Jeremy's cases have focused on a variety of technologies including computer security, e-commerce, 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, 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.
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.
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
- 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.