Overview
Jacob Rosenbaum assists clients in all aspects of trademark, patent, unfair competition, copyright, and rights of publicity litigation and enforcement. He has extensive experience enforcing and defending his clients’ intellectual property rights in U.S. District Court and before the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, and has represented clients in all stages of U.S. litigation, including pre-litigation counseling, discovery, motion practice, trial, mediation and settlement. In addition, Jacob works to develop complex enforcement strategies to protect all aspects of his clients’ intellectual property rights, including filing online takedown notices based on patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade dress rights, filing domain name disputes, customs and border enforcement, and international and domestic enforcement efforts.
Jacob approaches intellectual property rights with a holistic perspective and a focus on strengthening his clients’ rights to help them grow their brand and achieve their goals. In addition to his litigation practice, Jacob works with clients in reviewing their trademark and copyright portfolios to make strategic filings that enable them to more effectively enforce their rights online and in the marketplace. Jacob also has significant experience in trademark and copyright prosecution, licensing, international trademark disputes and prosecution, unfair competition law, and rights of publicity.
Jacob graduated from Boston University, cum laude, with a B.A. in English. He went on to receive his Juris Doctor from the University of California Davis School of Law.
Education
- University of California - Davis - School of Law (J.D., 2016)
- Boston University (B.A. English, 2013), cum laude
Affiliations
- International Trademark Association (INTA)
- INTA Non-Traditional Marks Committee (2020-Present)
Representative Experience
D.P.I. Labs, Inc. v. Scott DeSmet, 2:22-cv-09119-PA-JEM (C.D. Cal.)
Represent plaintiff D.P.I. Labs in a trademark infringement, copyright infringement, breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition dispute. Case settled.
Monster Energy Company v. BeastUp LLC, 2:17-CV-1605-KJM (E.D. Cal.)
Represented plaintiff, Monster Energy Company, in a trademark infringement action in the Eastern District of California. After a bench trial, the court awarded our client a permanent injunction.
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VPX) v. Monster Energy Company and Reign Beverage Company (S.D. Fla)
Represented Monster and Reign in a trademark and trade dress infringement suit brought by VPX, who sought over $100 million due to sales of Monster’s Reign beverage. Monster defeated VPX’s motion for preliminary injunction on its trade dress claim, won a preliminary injunction enjoining VPX from selling a competing Reign beverage, and won the dispute over ownership of the Reign mark on summary judgment. After a bench trial on VPX’s trade-dress claim, the court issued a 127-page written opinion in Monster’s favor.
Monster Energy Company v. Integrated Supply Network, LLC (C.D. Cal)
Represented Monster in a trademark and trade dress infringement case. After jury trial, the jury found that defendant infringed Monster’s trademarks and trade dress rights. After appeal and remand to the district court, the district court awarded Monster Energy $10.4 million in disgorgement of ISN’s profits. The court entered a stipulated final consent judgment and permanent injunction against defendant.
Recognition
Awards & Honors
- Recognized by The Legal 500 “United States” for Trademarks: Non-Contentious (2023) and Trademarks: Litigation (2026)
- Named a “Rising Star” by Southern California Super Lawyers (2025-2026)
- 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 Intellectual Property Law and Intellectual Property Litigation (2024 – 2025)
News & Insights
Articles
Co-Author, “Roger That, Jack: Applying Jack Daniel’s,” Reuters Westlaw, February 2025
Co-Author, “How Gross Is Your Assignment? Actions Speak Louder Than Words When Transferring Goodwill,” The Trademark Reporter, September-October, 2021 (Vol. 111, No. 5)
Failure of ITC to Follow Its Own Rules May Constitute Harmless Error Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (August 15, 2019)
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (February 7, 2019)
IN RE: DURANCE Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog (June 1, 2018)
A New Direction? Data Privacy and the FTC, Intellectual Property Magazine (March 2, 2017)
Litigation Blog
- Patent Failed to Enable Dosage Claims
- Doubling Down on Frivolous Claims Results in More Fees
- Ex Parte Reexaminations Are Maintained by the PTO, Not the Petitioner
- When ‘Optimal’ Isn’t Objective: The Pitfalls of Indefinite Claims
- Director Discretion: A Sotera Stipulation Does Not Mandate Institution
- Nothing Unusual With Recusal Refusal
- Standing or Guesswork? A Speculative Risk of Patent Cancellation is Insufficient for Standing
- $10 million to $1: Exclusion of Damages Expert Results in Nominal Damages for Surgical Stapler Patent Infringement
- The Consequences of Converting Voluntary Dismissals
- Can § 101 Carry the Weight?
- No Shenanigans: IPRs and Interference Estoppel
- An Eye Toward Prosecution History
- No Injury, No Appeal: Patent Owners Must Show Actual Injury for Article III Standing
- The Votes Are In: Highly Descriptive Marks Are Difficult to Protect
- No Error: The Board Committed No Procedural Error by Relying on Evidence Outside of the Prior Art Reference
- Traffix Jam – Technical Functionality Prevents Trademark Protection for the Color Pink
- Zoned Out: The Zone of Natural Expansion Doctrine Can Only Be Used Defensively
- Inaction Can Lead To Argument Forfeiture on Appeal
- Pulling the Cord on Unstated Claims Limitations
- A Private Sale Is Not Sufficient for Public Disclosure Under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B)
- Relying on Computer-Implemented, Result-Focused Functional Language Is a Bad Bet
- Going down With the Ship: Non-infringing Indications Are Barred When Listed in the Same ANDA as Infringing Indications
- Prosecution History May Support a Motivation to Combine
- What You “Said” in Your Claims May Be Limiting
