Jon V. Swenson

Partner

Jon Swenson Photo

Palo Alto

P: +1.650.739.7514 F: +1.650.739.7614
Select Options
  • Defending presumed injunctions in patent cases. Defended eBay, Inc. in a patent infringement action against MercExchange in the unanimous landmark Supreme Court decision that permanent injunctions should not be presumed in patent cases. Prior to the 2006 Supreme Court decision, defendants losing patent cases faced the certainty that they would be subject to a permanent injunction, creating significant leverage for plaintiffs to extract larger settlements. The Supreme Court clarified injunctions must be decided on a case-by-case basis using the traditional four factor test. The Supreme Court’s decision has been widely cited as one of the most important patent cases and has had a significant impact on the legal landscape for patent cases.
  • Defending a small company. Defended a small local commercial appliance manufacturer in a patent infringement case brought by a much larger international competitor. Implemented a strategy of aggressively challenging the complaint to avoid the impact of the traditional cost of defense of a patent case.  Granted a dismissal of the case with prejudice at the pleadings stage saving the small company.
  • Multi-faceted approach. Represented a solar technology company as lead counsel in a trade secret and breach of contract action against a former contractor.  Received an early settlement of claims through a multi-front approach involving foreign litigation and arbitration in the United States.

Patent Infringement Litigations

  • Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC et al., 5:13-cv-02023-PSG (ND Cal.)
  • Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC et al., 5:13-cv-01777-PSG (ND Cal.)
  • Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC and Blackberry Corporation et al., 5:14-cv-01380-PSG (ND Cal.)
  • Adaptix, Inc. v. Blackberry Corporation et al., 5:14-cv-01387-PSG (ND Cal.)
  • Adaptix, Inc. v. Blackberry Limited and T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al., 5:14-cv-01386-PSG (ND Cal.)
  • Adaptix, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation and T-Mobile USA Inc. et al., 5:15-cv-00167-PSG (ND Cal.)
  • Altera Corporation v. Mosaid Technologies Inc., 3:12-cv-00342-SI (ND Cal.)
  • ARM Ltd. et al. v. MOSAID Technologies, Inc., 3:11-cv-03869-CRM (ND Cal.)
  • Beckman Coulter Inc. et al. v. Sequenom, Inc., 08-cv-1013-MMA-POR (SD Cal.)
  • BrightEdge Technologies, Inc. v. Searchmetrics, GmbH et al., 3:14-cv-1009-WHO (ND Cal.)
  • Celtrace LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al., 6:09-cv-00294-LED-JDL (ED Tex.)
  • Certain Flash Memory Devices and Components Thereof, ITC-337-TA-1034
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Lenovo and AT&T Mobility LLC et al., 6:09-cv-00399-LED (ED Tex.)
  • Enovsys LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., 2:11-cv-05210-FMO-ARG (CD Cal.)
  • Freeslate, Inc. v. Chemspeed Technologies AG et al., 3:15-cv-02233-WHA (ND Cal.)
  • France Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., 3:12-cv-04967-WHO (ND Cal.)
  • Guidance IP LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al., 3:13-cv-04777-K (ND Tex.)
  • Halton Co. v. Streivor Inc., 3:10-cv-00655-WHA (ND Cal.)
  • Imation Corporation v. Moser Baer India Limited, et al., 0:07-cv-03668-DWF-AJB (D. Minn.)
  • Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al. v. AT&T Inc. et al., 2:14-cv-00720-JRG and 2:14-cv-00201-JRG  (ED Tex.)
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., 1:12-cv-00193-LPS (D Del.)
  • Intellectual Ventures II v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., 13-cv-1631-LPS (D Del.)
  • Levine v. Samsung TeleCommunications America, LLC and AT&T Mobility LLC et al., 2:09-cv-00372-MHS (ED Tex.)
  • Lodsys v. DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc. and OpinionLab, Inc. et al., 2:11-cv-00309 (ED Tex.)
  • Lodsys, LLC v. Adidas America, Inc., CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Sam’s West, Inc., The Container Store, Inc., and Vegas.com, LLC et al., 2:11-cv-00283 (ED Tex.)
  • McKesson Information Soluctions, LLC v. Trizetto Group Inc., 1:04-cv-01258-SLR (D Del.)
  • Memory Technologies, LLC v. SanDisk LLC et al., 8:16-cv-02163 (CD Cal.)
  • MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., et al., 2:01-cv-00736-JEB (ED Va.)
  • Ormco Corporation v. Align Technology Inc., 8-03-cv-00016 (CD Cal.)
  • Power Integrations v. ON Semiconductor Corp. et al., Case No. 16-cv-06371-BLF (ND Cal.)
  • SmartPhone Technologies LLC v. Research In Motion Corporation and AT&T Mobility LLC et al., 6:10-cv-00074-LED-JDL (ED Tex.)
  • Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG and AT&T et al., 8:07-cv-0312-AW (D Md.)
  • TracBeam, LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al., 6:11-cv-00096-LED (ED Tex.)
  • United Access Technologies LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al., 1:11-cv-00338-LPS (D Del.)

Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Inter Partes Reviews and Covered Business Method Reviews

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,135,706 - Operationalizing Search Engine Optimization
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,135,746 - Operationalizing Search Engine Optimization
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,478,700 - Opportunity Identification and Forecasting for Search Engine Optimization
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,960,032 - High speed data transmission using expanded bit durations in multiple parallel coded data streams
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,339,352 - Directory assistance call completion via mobile systems

Other Litigations

  • A&S Liquidating Inc. v. AB&I Foundry et al., 3:13-cv-04568-EMC (ND Cal.)
  • Adkins v. AB&I Foundry et al., 3:13-cv-05152-LB (ND Cal.)
  • BrightEdge Technologies, Inc. v. Martinez, et al., No. 113CV256794 (Santa Clara County Superior Court)
  • In re Searchmetrics, Inc., Case No. 17-11032 (United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware)
  • CAI International Inc. v. South Atlantic Container Lines Ltd et al., 4:11-cv-02403-CW (ND Cal.)
  • Christison v. Biogen Idec Inc. et al., 3:11-cv-04382-RS (ND Cal.)
  • Compucom Systems Inc. v. Hitachi Ltd et al., 3:11-cv-06396-SC (ND Cal.)
  • Desire LLC v. Pret Fashions Inc. et al., 2:12-cv-08230-DDP-MAN (CD Cal.)
  • In Re: Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, 3:10-md-02143-RS (ND Cal.)
  • Las Vegas Supply Inc. v. AB&I Foundry et al., 3:13-cv-04792-EMC (ND Cal.)
  • Lundmark v. AB&J Foundry et al., 3:13-cv-05217-EMC (ND Cal.)
  • MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 3:07-cv-05944-SC (ND Cal.)
  • Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA Inc. et al., 3:12-cv-06361-WHA (ND Cal.)
  • P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation et al. v. Hitchai Ltd. et al., 3:12-cv-02648-SC (ND Cal.)
  • Security Supply Corporation v. McWane, Inc.et al., 4:13-cv-05114-DMR (ND Cal.)
  • Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. v. Soukup, 2:12-mc-00053-LKK-CKD (ED Cal.)
  • Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. v. Soukup, 3:12-mc-80106-WHA (ND Cal.)
  • Siegel v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al., 3:11-cv-05502-SC (ND Cal.)
  • Target Corp. et al. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD et al., 3:11-cv-05514-SC (ND Cal.)
  • Trumbull Industries, Inc. v. AB&I Foundry et al., 3:13-cv-04833-EMC (ND Cal.)
  • Viewsonic Corporation v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. et al., 3:14-cv-02510-SC (ND Cal.)