Jordan Jones focuses his practice on complex/technology litigation and intellectual property. He has extensive experience with patent infringement litigation and other intellectual property matters, including commercial, technology-related and copyright infringement litigation. Mr. Jones also advises clients on intellectual property strategy and licensing. He represents companies in a variety of industries and has worked on litigation matters in California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Texas, Virginia, and others. Mr. Jones has also represented clients in arbitration and in investigations pending before the U.S. International Trade Commission. The majority of his technology experience has involved electronics, semiconductor devices, semiconductor manufacturing, computer memory devices, wireless communications, computer hardware & software, and internet-related technologies. Mr. Jones is also a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US), as certified by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). He helps clients identify and manage data privacy and information security risks and related legal obligations.
Mr. Jones was recognized as a Northern California “Super Lawyer” in 2019 and the four years immediately preceding for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine.
Co-lead trial counsel. Defense of semiconductor patents in E.D. Virginia. Settled.
In a case ultimately won by its client, we represented Gemstar at trial in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning interactive program guides used in cable and satellite set-top boxes.
Counsel for Hyundai in patent infringement litigation involving the design and fabrication of DRAM devices. Texas Instruments v. Hyundai Electronics, et al., No. 2:98-cv-00073 (E.D. Tex. filed May 1, 1998).
Trial counsel for CSIRO as defendant in litigation for declaratory relief of patent infringement involving 802.11 wireless LAN technology. Marvell Semiconductor et al v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, No. 6:07-cv-00204 (E.D. Tex. Filed May 4, 2007).
Counsel for PCT Systems in patent infringement litigation involving chemical cleaning systems for semiconductor wafers. Imtec Acculine, Inc. v. PCT Systems, Inc., et al., No. 4:00-cv-00307 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 27, 2000).
Lead counsel for eStyle in patent infringement litigation involving user interfaces for retail catalogs. Activ8Now, LLC v. eStyle, Inc., No. 1:03-cv-03038 (N.D. Ga. filed Oct. 6, 2003).
Counsel for Hitachi in patent infringement litigation involving the design and fabrication of power MOSFET devices. Hitachi Semiconductor (America), Inc. et al v. International Rectifier Corporation, No. 4:02-cv-01730 (N.D. Cal. Filed Apr. 10, 2002).
Co-lead trial counsel. Defense of nine semiconductor patents in E.D. Virginia. Settled. Harris Corporation v. Hyundai Elec Indust, et al., No. 1:97-cv-00132 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 29, 1997).
Counsel for Trend Micro in patent infringement litigation involving gateway virus scanning software. Trend Micro, Inc. v. McAfee Associates, et al., No. 5:97-cv-20438 (N.D. Cal filed May 13, 1997).
Trial counsel for CSIRO, an agency of the Australian government, as defendant in litigation for declaratory relief of patent infringement involving 802.11 wireless LAN technology. Intel Corporation et al v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, No. 6:06-cv-00551 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 26, 2006); Microsoft Corporation et al v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, No. 6:06-cv-00549 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 22, 2006).
Counsel for Test Research in patent infringement litigation involving electronic circuit board test equipment and methods. Teradyne Inc., et al. v. Test Research Inc., No. 4:03-cv-00248 (N.D. Tex. filed Apr. 3, 2003).
Integrated Circuit Systems (ICS) hired our firm to defend it against patent infringement charges by Cypress Semiconductor accusing ICS of infringing Cypress' patent relating to zero delay buffers – a product which represented a significant portion of ICS's business in the United States. In response, our lawyers filed ICS’ own counter ITC patent action against Cypress and had the two actions consolidated, which ultimately resulted in a successful settlement for ICS.
Lead counsel for Shopzilla in a patent infringement litigation involving guided parametric search software and graphical user interface. PartsRiver, Inc. v. Shopzilla, Inc., No. 4:09-cv-00811 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 25, 2009).
Counsel for Hyundai in patent infringement litigation involving semiconductor fabrication processes and circuits.
Counsel for Ask Jeeves in patent infringement litigation involving natural language processing of databases. IPLearn LLC v. Ask Jeeves Inc., No. 4:99-cv-03352 (N.D. Cal. filed July 8, 1999).
Trial counsel for CSIRO in litigation for patent infringement involving 802.11 wireless LAN technology. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al., No. 09-399 (E.D. Tex. filed Sept. 9, 2009).
Counsel for Extended Systems in patent infringement litigation involving software for database synchronization. Pumatech Inc. v. Extended Systems Inc., No. 4:02-cv-01916 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 19, 2002).
The firm represented complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC in this investigation involving video decoder and wireless local area network patents. Following the evidentiary hearing, the ALJ determined that an exclusion order was appropriate.
In re Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-837. (ITC investigation commenced 2011).
Defended software licensee for Nexant, Inc. against claims of copyright infringement arising from alleged use of software outside of scope of license. Rogue Wave Software Inc. v. Nexant Inc. et al., No. 1:10-cv-02577 (D. Colo. filed Oct. 21, 2010).
Represented defendant Adobe in a patent infringement case involving distributed storage systems. Case settled shortly after Adobe successfully moved to disqualify opposing counsel from representing plaintiff.
Parallel Iron, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, No. 1:12-cv-00874 (D. Del. filed July 12, 2012).
Defended Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. in its long-standing battle against Rambus in dispute involving DRAM patents, antitrust claims, and spoliation of evidence. Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. et al., Nos. 00-cv-20905 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 29, 2000); 5:05-cv-00334 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 25, 2005).
We defended Motorola against Fujifilm's assertion of five patents relating to digital cameras and the transmission of files through a cell phone. After summary judgment and a two week jury trial in San Francisco, Motorola prevailed on four of the five patents (proving two of the patents invalid and not infringed, one patent not infringed, and one patent invalid), and excluded willful infringement or injunctive relief. Through ex parte reexamination proceedings, Kilpatrick Townsend invalidated the fifth patent. Fujifilm Corporation v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 3:12-cv-3587 (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2012).
Insights View All
University of California at Los Angeles, School of Law, J.D. (1993)
Princeton University, B.S., Electrical Engineering (1988)
District of Columbia (1996)
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Children's Council of San Francisco, Board of Directors, Secretary
IAPP - International Association of Privacy Professionals, Member
Charles Houston Bar Association, Member
American Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
Bar Association of San Francisco, 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.