Josh Lee concentrates his practice on patent infringement litigation.
Mr. Lee has litigated and/or analyzed patents in a wide range of technologies, including telecommunication systems, software-related systems, electrical and mechanical systems, chemical products, textile products, retail goods, and financial related technologies. Mr. Lee has represented companies in patent infringement suits in various United States courts, including in Texas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Florida, and Oregon, as well as before the International Trade Commission (ITC).
Mr. Lee has regularly coordinated many aspects of litigation, including infringement and validity analyses, motion practice, claim construction, discovery, taking and defending of depositions, expert discovery, pre-trial proceedings, and trial. Mr. Lee has jury trial experience, including serving as the lead associate in a jury trial in which the jury returned a verdict that his client did not infringe and that the opponent’s patent claims were invalid.
Mr. Lee is a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He has prepared and prosecuted patent applications in a wide range of technologies, including mechanical, aerospace, and medical device technologies.
During law school, Mr. Lee was named National Champion in the 2010 AIPLA Giles Sutherland Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition, which focuses on issues in patent law.
Prior to his legal career, Mr. Lee worked as a process engineer in the textile industry.
Mr. Lee was recognized as a Georgia "Rising Star" in the area of Intellectual Property Litigation in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 by Super Lawyers magazine.
Lead counsel for adidas in patent infringement suit regarding athletic performance measurement technology. After engaging in early fact discovery, we obtained a favorable resolution of this matter for our client prior to claim construction briefing. Leaper Footwear, LLC v. adidas America, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00470 (D. Utah filed May 25, 2011).
Defended Sidense Corp. in litigation asserting patent infringement, trade libel and defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 relating to one-transistor, one-time programmable embedded non-volatile memory (eNVM) technology. Defeated patent claims on summary judgment and plaintiff dismissed business tort claims with prejudice. District Court ordered Kilopass to pay Sidense $5.5 million in attorneys' fees and costs.
Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., No. 10-2066 (N.D. Cal. filed May 14, 2010).
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Alfresco Software in a lawsuit involving allegations of patent infringement related to content management systems. The lawsuit involved nine patents from two distinct families of patents, each covering different subject matter. After successfully transferring the case from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Northern District of California, Alfresco invalidated two of the asserted patents at the 12(b)(6) stage under the Supreme Court's Alice standard for patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The remainder of the case was settled shortly thereafter on confidential terms. Open Text SA v. Alfresco Software Ltd., et al., 13-cv-04843 JD (N. D. Cal., filed October 18, 2013).
We represented Motorola Mobility in defending patent infringement claims related to wireless earpiece technology in the Western District of Texas. After winning summary judgment on certain of the claims and forcing plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of others before trial, we presented a defense that led the jury to return a verdict of non-infringement and invalidity against the remaining claims that were at issue. Effingo Wireless, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 5:11-cv-00649 (W.D. Tex.) We also invalidated the patent in a re-examination proceeding.
Defending ARRIS in patent infringement and importation investigation brought by Rovi, related to on-screen programing guide technology. Trial set for December before Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw, with related actions in E.D. Texas and New York State Court. In re Digital Video Receivers, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1001.
Representing Respondent ARRIS in a patent infringement and importation investigation brought by OpenTV/Nagra/Kudelski, related to digital content and voice command technology. Trial is estimated for November 2017 before Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex. In re Certain Digital Television Set-Top Boxes, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1041.
University of Tennessee College of Law, J.D. (2010) with honors
Clemson University, B.S., Industrial Engineering (2006) magna cum laude
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2007)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2013)
Georgia Superior Court (2010)
Georgia Court of Appeals (2011)
Georgia Supreme Court (2011)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2011)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (2014)
American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), Member
AIPLA Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition, Volunteer
American Bar Association, Member
Atlanta Bar Association, Member
State Bar of Georgia, Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.