Overview
Jared Bunker is an IP litigator with nearly two decades of experience. Clients trust Jared to handle complex patent, trade secret, and contract disputes. He represents clients in state and district court cases throughout the country, as well as before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Jared has a deep technical and legal background, representing clients in the pharmaceutical, automotive, software, and medical device fields. Recently, Jared represented a large pharmaceutical company at trial in the District of Delaware. The trial centered on patents relating to a drug used to treat kidney disorders. In a separate case, Jared represented a software designer accusing his former employer of trade secret misappropriation. He secured a case-dispositive settlement after winning a motion to dismiss the former employer’s counterclaims. And in an arbitration before the AAA, Jared represented a pharmaceutical company in a contract dispute involving unpaid royalties, securing a complete victory for his client.
Jared has been recognized several times by Benchmark Litigation and Super Lawyers magazine for his litigation skills.
Jared is a member of the firm’s Executive Committee.
Education
- University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) (J.D., 2006)
- Brigham Young University (B.S. Chemistry, 2003), magna cum laude, National Society of Collegiate Scholars, Phi Beta Kappa
Affiliations
American Bar Association (Policy Monitor – Intellectual Property Litigation Division (former))
Association of Business Trial Lawyers
Orange County Bar Association (Chair – Intellectual Property Law Division (former))
Federal Bar Association
Community Legal Aid SoCal (President; Director (former))
Representative Experience
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Lupin Limited et al., 21-900-RGA (D. Del.) (2024); 2024-2297 (Fed. Cir. 2026)
Represented Lupin in Hatch-Waxman litigation in the District of Delaware and at the Federal Circuit concerning patents related to tolvaptan (the active ingredient in Otsuka’s Jynarque®). After a three-day bench trial, Judge Andrews found that Lupin’s product did not infringe the two patents-in-suit and invalidated one of the patents. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion. Jynarque® is used to treat a life-threatening kidney disease. This decision in Lupin’s favor allows the company to provide patients in the U.S. with a more cost-effective treatment option.
Astellas Pharma Inc., et al v. Sandoz, et al, 20-1589-JFB-EGT (Consolidated)
Represents Lupin in ongoing Hatch-Waxman litigation in the District of Delaware concerning patents related to mirabegron (the active ingredient in Astellas’s Myrbetriq®). Astellas filed a preliminary injunction motion to block Lupin from launching its generic product in January 2024. A hearing with live witnesses was held in March 2024. In April 2024, Judge Burke issued a Report and Recommendation recommending denial of Astellas’s motion for preliminary injunction. The District Court subsequently adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Astellas’s motion for preliminary injunction. The consolidated litigation is currently set for trial in 2026.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Ellodi Pharmaceuticals, L.P., IPR2025-00052, IPR2025-00054, IPR2025-00055, IPR2025-00056
Represented Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH in multiple inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging the validity of several patents owned by Ellodi Pharmaceuticals, L.P. The proceedings resulted in a complete victory for Dr. Falk, with all challenged patent claims being disclaimed.
Masimo Corp. et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 8:20-00048 (C.D. Cal.)
Represented two related companies (Masimo and Cercacor Laboratories) against Apple in several forums, including in the Central District of California. Following trials in November 2024 and November 2025, the Court returned a judgment in Masimo’s favor on its claims for trade secret misappropriation, and a jury returned a verdict in Masimo’s favor on its claims for patent infringement.
Baxter International, Inc. v. CyDex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 21-0002-6106 (AAA)
Represented CyDex Pharmaceuticals in a contract dispute before the American Arbitration Association. Secured a complete victory for Cydex.
Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP. v. Alere, Inc., 2019-1595, 2019-1648 (C.A.F.C.)
Represented Rembrandt Diagnostics in an appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Secured a vacatur of adverse judgment against Rembrandt.
Kress v. OPMNY, LLC et al., 18-cv-3992 (S.D. Tex.).
Represented software designer Barry Kress in a lawsuit accusing his former employer of infringing his copyrights and misappropriating his trade secrets in new software code for processing credit card payments. Secured a favorable case-dispositive settlement after winning a motion to dismiss former employer’s counterclaims.
Aquastar Pool Products, Inc. v. Color Match Pool Fittings, Inc., 18-cv-94-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.).
Represented leading pool drain designer Color Match Pool Fittings, Inc. in a patent-infringement lawsuit involving nine patents. Secured a favorable case-dispositive settlement after winning motions for summary judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement.
Caire, Inc. v. Inogen, Inc., 16-cv-3413-ELR (N.D. Ga).
Successfully defended Inogen, Inc., a designer and manufacturer of portable oxygen concentrators, from an accusation of patent infringement. Secured a favorable case-dispositive settlement after challenging the asserted patent with an IPR petition before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Gentherm Canada, ULC et al. v. IGB Automotive LTD, 13-11536 (E.D. Mich.).
Represented Gentherm Canada in a patent-infringement lawsuit and six IPR proceedings relating to automotive climate-control systems. Secured favorable case-dispositive settlement after successful IPR defense.
Desjardins et al. v. Wax et al., Patent Interference No. 105,915.
Represented Adam Wax in an interference proceeding before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The technology related to interferometers for detecting early-stage cancer. Favorable dispositive judgment secured for Mr. Wax.
Miller et al v. Richardson, Patent Interference No. 106,040.
Represented Robert Richardson in an interference proceeding before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The technology related to machines for removing industrial pollutants from air streams. Favorable dispositive judgment secured for Mr. Richardson.
Redline Detection, LLC v. Star EnviroTech, Inc. (IPR2013-00106).
Represented Star EnviroTech in one of the first IPR proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Successfully defended Star’s patent claims, making Star one of only a small percentage of patent holders to survive an early IPR challenge with all claims intact. Also represented Star on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2015-1047), which upheld the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in a 33-page precedential decision.
AstraZeneca UK Limited. et al. v. Watson Labs., Inc. et al., Civ. No. 10-915 (D. Del.).
Represented Watson (now Actavis) in a patent infringement action relating to AstraZeneca’s Crestor® product. Case tried in 2012. Favorable case-dispositive settlement after trial.
AstraZeneca Pharm. et al. v. Cobalt Pharm., Inc. et al, Civ. No. 10-340 (D. Del.).
Represented Cobalt in a patent-infringement action relating to the use of AstraZeneca’s Crestor® product. Judgment for Cobalt dismissing all claims. Decision upheld on appeal.
AstraZeneca Pharm. LP et al. v. Handa Pharm., LLC, 08-cv-03773 (D.N.J.).
Represented Handa in a patent-infringement action relating to AstraZeneca’s Seroquel XR® product. Favorable case-dispositive settlement for Handa.
Salix Pharm. v. Novel Lab. et al., 3:08-cv-4628 (D.N.J.).
Represented Salix in a patent-infringement action relating to Salix’s OsmoPrep® product. Favorable case-dispositive settlement for Salix.
Masimo Corp. v. Respironics, 30-2008-00102827 (Cal. Sup. Ct.).
Represented Masimo in a lawsuit accusing its competitor of misappropriating trade secrets and breaching a contract relating to Masimo’s proprietary pulse oximeter products. Favorable case-dispositive settlement for Masimo.
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Gaya Ltd., 1:05-cv-8914 (C.D. Cal.).
Represented Applied in a patent-infringement action relating to devices for minimally invasive surgery. Favorable case-dispositive settlement for Applied.
Recognition
Awards & Honors
-
Named a Southern California “Super Lawyer” (2026)
-
Recognized in the “Best Lawyers 2025-2026 Guide” for Patent Litigation in Best Lawyers in America (2024-2025)
- Recognized in Benchmark Litigation for his “exceptional” intellectual property litigation work (2021)
- Recognized in Benchmark Litigation‘s exclusive “Under 40 Hot List” for his work in intellectual property litigation (2018)
- Named a “Southern California Rising Star” by Super Lawyers magazine for his work in intellectual property litigation (2013-2019)
- Recognized as one of Southern California’s “Rising Stars” in a survey published in Los Angeles magazine (2010-2011)
News & Insights
Speeches & Seminars
Mr. Bunker lectures extensively for local bar associations. He has also taught courses in intellectual property law and intellectual property litigation at law schools in California and Utah.
