Justin J. Gillett is a litigation Partner in the Orange County office of Knobbe Martens.
Mr. Gillett’s practice focuses on technology litigation, including patent, trademark, trade secret, and licensing cases. He has handled cases involving consumer products, medical devices, ergonomic devices, computer technology, and infrastructure. Mr. Gillett has broad experience in multiple federal courts, including the Eastern District of Texas, the District of Delaware, and the Central District of California, among others.
Mr. Gillett is a registered patent attorney and also has experience drafting and prosecuting patent applications through allowance before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
In 2016, Mr. Gillett served as a Deputy District Attorney for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office as part of the Trial Attorney Partnership. In that role, Mr. Gillett tried two jury trials to verdict and conducted several preliminary hearings on felony matters.
Mr. Gillett was nominated for the 2018 California Lawyers Association Jack Berman Award of Achievement, which recognizes a new or young lawyer for distinguished service to the public, the judiciary, or the legal profession. Since joining Knobbe Martens, Mr. Gillett has contributed more than 900 hours of pro bono legal service helping indigent clients handle litigation matters in federal court. Mr. Gillett has held leadership positions in several community groups and bar organizations, including the Public Law Center, Orange County Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, the Constitutional Rights Foundation of Orange County, and the Notre Dame Club of Orange County.
Before joining Knobbe Martens, Mr. Gillett served as a law clerk for the Honorable Leonard Davis (Ret.), Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He earned a Bachelor’s of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Notre Dame, where he also was a member of the varsity football team. Before beginning his legal career, Mr. Gillett held several positions in operations management for General Electric’s Aviation business. Mr. Gillett then attended Michigan Law School, where he graduated with honors.
Hon. Leonard E. Davis, Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- Recognized by The Legal 500 "United States" for Patent Litigation (2021)
- 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 Patent Litigation (2021 - 2022)
Co-author, "FBA/OC Honors Don Martens with the Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler Award at Annual Judges' Night" which was published in FBA/OC The Newsletter of the Federal Bar Association/Orange County Chapter. (May 2018)
- Negative Claim Construction Found Inadequate
- Identical Elements Are Not Required for the Presumption of Obviousness Based on Overlapping Ranges
- Indefiniteness Is Not Determined by the Claim Language Alone
- Willful Infringement Does Not Require “Wanton, Malicious, and Bad-Faith” Behavior
- Authentication of Prior Art in an IPR Does Not Require Testimony
- Characterizing Plaintiff’s Actions as Attempts to “Manipulate Venue,” Federal Circuit Orders Transfer of Cases to More Convenient Forum
- Licensee Lacks Standing to Appeal an Adverse IPR Decision Based On Royalty Payments for a Patent Portfolio and a Speculative Post-License Lawsuit
- Federal Circuit Affirms $173 Million Award
- Vexatious and Wanton Conduct Calls for Attorney Fees
- Concrete Plans Establish Standing for IPR Appeals
- Eligibility for CBM Review Is Not Appealable
- Joining an IPR Triggers IPR Estoppel Only for Instituted Grounds
- Patent Owner Arguments Do Not Limit the Scope of the Issues the Board May Address in Its Final Written Decision
- Unconstitutionally Appointed Judges Cannot Decide Ex Parte Appeals
- IPR Real-Parties-In-Interest Determination Is Final and Non-Appealable
- Standing to Appeal an Adverse IPR Decision Requires an Injury
- Supreme Court Holds Willfulness Is Not Required to Award Profits for Trademark Infringement
- Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice Does Not Preclude Attorney’s Fees