Overview
Mr. Re is a nationally recognized trial attorney, having tried numerous high-stakes medical device cases before juries throughout the country over the past thirty-five years.
Mr. Re’s trial success before juries against some of the country’s largest medical device companies has been extraordinary. When leading trial teams representing the firm’s longstanding Orange County based clients, Masimo and Applied Medical, Mr. Re has obtained four nine-figure jury verdicts averaging over $400 million each. The most recent included a $382 million verdict against medical-device giant Medtronic for violating various antitrust laws when selling numerous devices to hospitals in bundled contracts. Mr. Re also led trial teams to help Masimo protect its ground-breaking patient-monitoring technology against its primary rival, where the Federal Circuit affirmed a $134 million award and ordered the entry of a permanent injunction. Those victories allowed Masimo to garner several hundred million in damages and ongoing royalties and to go public. Years later, Mr. Re and his colleagues asserted Masimo patents against patient-monitoring giant Philips. The jury awarded Masimo over $466 million while rejecting Philips infringement claims. The National Law Journal featured the verdict as a top verdict of the year. After the court upheld the verdict, the parties settled in a blockbuster deal where Philips paid Masimo over $300 million and agreed to a joint marketing and sales program in which Philips would integrate Masimo technologies in its patient monitors. Finally, Mr. Re led trial teams in various patent and trade secret cases against Apple and a former employee concerning the Apple Watch. Those cases resulted in various rulings and verdicts including a $636 million jury verdict for patent infringement and declarations that Apple and the employee misappropriated trade secrets. They also included an exclusion order from the International Trade Commission blocking Apple from importing various versions of its Apple Watch.
Mr. Re’s success representing accused infringers has been just as impressive. In all of the numerous cases he has taken to trial, no jury has ever awarded any figure above $5 Million, and in every case, he obtained reversal of those awards or his clients ended up paying nothing upon resolution of the case.
Mr. Re is a very experienced appellate advocate, often selected to argue appeals in cases handled by his colleagues and other law firms. He has argued dozens of appeals over the past thirty-five years, the bulk of which were before the United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit on behalf of both intellectual property holders and accused infringers.
Mr. Re served as the President of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Federal Circuit Bar Association, and the Federal Circuit Historical Society. He was a founder and President of the Howard T. Markey American Inns of Court. He served on the Federal Circuit’s Advisory Council for nine years. Mr. Re has also written and spoken extensively on patent law and federal practice and procedure. Since 1990, Mr. Re has authored numerous appellate briefs on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association as amicus curiae before the Supreme Court of the United States and various appellate courts.
The National Law Journal has named Mr. Re one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America” and as a “Winning Litigator.” The Daily Journal has repeatedly named Mr. Re as one of the top “100 Leading Lawyers in California.” In 2014, Mr. Re was recognized as “MVP of the Year – Intellectual Property” by Law360. In 2004, The California Lawyer named Re “California Attorney of the Year.” Mr. Re’s numerous awards and honors are detailed below.
Before joining the firm in 1987, Mr. Re served for two years as a law clerk to the Honorable Howard T. Markey, the first Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He became a partner of the firm in 1990 and after 36 years as a partner still has a very active trial and appellate practice today.
Clerk Experience
Honorable Howard T. Markey, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1985-1987
Education
- St. John's University School of Law (J.D., 1985), Notes and Comments Editor, St. John's Law Review
- Rutgers University College of Engineering (B.S. Civil Engineering, 1982), Selected by student body to deliver commencement address, Chi Epsilon - Civil Engineering Honorary Society
Affiliations
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Advisory Council (2005-2014)
Federal Circuit Bar Association
- President (2008-2009)
- President-Elect (2007-2008)
- Vice President (2006-2007)
- Treasurer (2004-2006)
- Board of Directors (2001-2004)
American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
- President (2020-2021)
- President Elect (2019-2020)
- First Vice President (2018-2019)
- Second Vice President (2017-2018)
- Board of Directors (2003-2006)
- Chairman of the Amicus Committee (1997-1999)
- Authored numerous amicus curiae briefs for AIPLA in landmark patent cases such as Markman, Festo, Cardinal Chemical, Florida Prepaid, College Savings Bank, Microsoft v. AT&T, and Gunn v. Minton, each before the Supreme Court of the United States
Representative Experience
Representative Matters for Plaintiffs/IP Owner
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 8:23-cv-00268-WLH-DFM (C.D. Cal.)(active)
Represented medical-device maker Applied Medical and led trial team to obtain a jury verdict of $382 with findings that medical-device giant Medtronic had violated various antitrust laws when contracting with Group Purchasing Organizations and hospitals when selling various products in bundles.
The Masimo-Apple cases (2020 – active)
Led various trial teams for Masimo in two on-going district court cases and an U.S. International Trade Commission investigation in cases finding Apple infringed various Masimo patents and misappropriated Masimo trade secrets because of its use of pulse oximetry technology in its Apple Watch. Argued for Masimo against Apple’s appeal of the ITC’s exclusion order barring the importation of infringing Apple Watch models (Inv. No. 337-TA-1276 and Appeal No. 2024-1285, pending)). Assisted team members in California to obtain a $636 million jury verdict finding the Apple Watch infringes a Masimo patent allowing continuous physiological measurements while conserving battery life (No. 8:20-cv-00048-JVS (C.D. Cal), pending). Moreover, in response to Apple’s assertion of ten patents in Delaware, helped obtain a jury verdict rejecting Apple’s patent infringement claims against Masimo’s wrist-worn pulse oximeter (No 22-1377-78 (JLH)(D.Del.)(pending)).
Masimo Corp. v. True Wearables, 18-cv-02001 (C.D. Cal.), aff’d, 2022 WL 205485 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Obtained a preliminary injunction preventing a former employee from allowing various patent applications to publish and disclose client trade secrets. Then, persuaded the appellate court to affirm the injunction. In 2022, tried the case on the merits and obtained ruling that the employee had misappropriated various Masimo trade secrets after leaving employment at Apple.
Masimo Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America Corp. and Philips Medizin Systeme Boblingen GmbH., Case No. 09-80-LPS-MPT (D. Del. 2014).
Represented medical-device maker Masimo and led trial team to a complete victory in obtaining a jury verdict of over $466 million for lost-profits damages against Philips for infringing two Masimo patents. The jury also rejected Philips’s infringement claims seeking $169 million. The parties have since settled where Philips paid Masimo $300M and agreed to integrate Masimo technology in its patient monitors.
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien, CV 11-01406, (C.D. Cal., 2014).
Represented medical-device maker and patent owner Applied Medical Resources, Corp. in an inventorship dispute filed by Covidien and Gaya Ltd. In a 130-page opinion, the district court ruled in Applied’s favor on all claims, holding that no individuals associated with Gaya are inventors on any of the five Applied patents at issue.
Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Corp., 593 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Represented elevator company Schindler and obtained reversal of noninfringement ruling. On remand, obtained a jury verdict that Otis directly and indirectly infringed the patent and that the patent is valid. On second appeal, Federal Circuit invalidated the patent for obviousness. No. 2011-1615 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Advanced Thermal Sciences Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc., SACV 07-1384 JVS (C.D. Cal 2010).
Represented BE Aerospace subsidiary ATS, and after a bench trial, won a ruling that AMI breached a joint development agreement by filing ten patent applications on temperature control systems for semiconductor fabrication equipment and that ATS was the sole inventor and owner of other patents. ATS was also awarded its attorney fees.
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, reh’g en banc denied, (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Represented medical-device maker and patent owner and obtained reversal of noninfringement ruling. After remand, jury verdict of patent validity and no infringement. Affirmed on appeal.
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp., 353 F. Supp.2d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2004), aff'd, 453 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In jury trial, represented medical-device maker in obtaining verdict of $43.5 million and a finding that Tyco-Unit U.S. Surgical had willfully infringed patent. The Court upheld the verdict, enhanced the damages, and entered a $64.5 million judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in its entirety.
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28518 (C.D. Cal 2004), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19427, 2005 WL 2139867, 147 Fed. Appx. 158, reh’g en banc denied, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 24108 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. dis
In jury trial and on appeal, obtained $134.5 million verdict for owner of four patents on read-through-motion pulse oximeters. Jury found that Covidien-held Nellcor had willfully infringed the four patents, while also finding that client had not infringed a Tyco patent. Before trial, the court dismissed on summary judgment other Nellcor claims and defenses. 254 F. Supp.2d 1140 (Markman), 292 F. Supp.2d 1201, and 293 F. Supp.2d 1102 (C.D. Cal. 2003). The appellate court affirmed a $164.5 million judgment and ordered the entry of a permanent injunction. The case settled for $330 million and future royalties.
Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 921 (2002).
Represented plaintiff patent owner and obtained reversal of noninfringement ruling. Ruling led to settlement.
Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc., 153 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1143 (1999).
Argued appeal on various jurisdictional and preemption issues for electronic window-blind manufacturer.
Representative Matters for Accused Infringer/Defendant
Inari Medical v. Imperative Care, 5:24-cv-03117-EKL (N.D. Cal. 2025).
Represented medical device manufacturer of systems to aspirate blood clots and defeated competitor’s assertion of two of a dozen patents on a motion for a preliminary injunction. Subsequently obtained a stay of the litigation pending the outcome of numerous Inter Partes Reviews before the Patent & Trademark Office.
Pavemetrics Systems v. Tetra Tech, No. 2:21-cv-1289 (C.D. Cal.)
After filing a declaratory judgment action for client Pavemetrics, obtained jury verdict that all asserted claims of two patents on railway track assessment systems were invalid for obviousness in view of the client’s own prior work. The jury also found all claims not infringed. (Case settled before any retrial or appeal)
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Monster Energy Co., 553 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (S.D. Fla. 2021), aff’d, No. 21-13264 (11th Cir. 2022)
Successfully defended client Monster Energy from trademark infringement claims against the sale of its REIGN energy drinks to defeat a preliminary injunction, and after an order striking the jury demand, tried the case before the bench and obtained a judgment of no trade dress infringement. On appeal, obtained an affirmance that the district court did not deny plaintiff its right to trial by jury.
Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2019-cv-0123 (E.D. Tex), rev’d, No.2021-1937 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
After a jury verdict that a patent on a microphone system was infringed by the sale of Amazon’s Echo products and a damages award of only $5 million, argued the appeal to obtain a complete reversal that Echo did not infringe any patent claim.
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Amazon.com and Amazon Web Services, LLC, 161 F. Supp. 3d 325 (D. Del. 2015), 2016 WL 7118532 (Fed. Cir. 2016), rehearing denied, (2017).
Represented Amazon and successfully persuaded the district court, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, to invalidate all seven patents asserted by a non-practicing entity because all of the patents claimed ineligible subject matter. Obtained complete affirmance from the Federal Circuit.
Smith & Nephew Inc. v. Rea and Synthes, 721 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Dupuy Synthes Prods., LLC v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2014-1136 (Jan. 13, 2015).
In two appeals before the Federal Circuit, Mr. Re represented Smith & Nephew, which was accused of infringing patents on orthopedic bone plates by subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson. First, Mr. Re obtained a reversal of a Patent Office reexamination decision upholding the claims and the Federal Circuit held the claims were invalid for obviousness. In a second appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Office correctly held that the second patent was also invalid for obviousness. These appellate rulings rendered moot all pending litigation concerning these patents.
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc., 729 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
On appeal, represented medical-device maker after it lost a trial and faced a pending injunction for infringing a patent on devices for sealing vascular punctures. Obtained a reversal and a Federal Circuit ruling that patent was not protected by safe-harbor provision and thus was invalid for double patenting. Ruling led to $320 million sale of client to Cardinal Health in 2014.
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LLP, No. 09-CV-176-KFG (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2011), aff’d, No. 13-1624.(Fed. Cir. 2014)
Represented medical-device maker accused of infringing five Tyco patents. After two jury trials on four patents, jury and court ruled that all four patents were invalid and not infringed. First jury found one unchallenged claim infringed and awarded $4.8 million. After affirmance on appeal, parties settled all litigation.
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., SA-08-CV-102-RF (W.D. Tex. 2010), rev’d, 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Represented Smith & Nephew at jury trial and obtained judgment that KCI patents on negative pressure wound therapy were invalid for obviousness. While on appeal, patent holder terminated license with KCI. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court and while on rehearing over right to trial by jury on obviousness, patent holder licensed Smith & Nephew to settle case.
Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376 (Fed Cir. 2011).
Represented numerous manufacturers of portable computers with touch screens and obtained affirmance of judgment of no patent infringement.
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Medical Group, 554 F.3d 1010, reh’g en banc denied, (Fed. Cir. 2009).
On appeal, obtained affirmance of jury verdict that gauze-based system for negative pressure wound therapy does not infringe patents.
Heuft Systemtechnik GmbH v. Industrial Dynamics Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13486, 2008 WL 2518562 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
In jury trial and appeal, represented manufacturer of bottle-inspection equipment accused of patent infringement. After jury trial and verdict of infringement, successfully defeated claims for damages and injunction, and after appeal, defeated all claims of infringement as well.
Koepnick Medical & Educ. Research Found., L.L.C. v. Alcon Labs., Inc. et al., 347 F. Supp. 2d 731 (D. Ariz. 2004), aff'd, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 28880, 2005 WL 3543012, reh’g denied (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Representing Bausch & Lomb, Inc. at the district court and on appeal, obtained favorable claim construction and judgment of no infringement against patent owner alleging that LASIK eye surgery infringed patent.
Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005), aff’g 2004 WL 1398227 (D.N.J. 2004).
In jury trial and on appeal, represented laboratory-instrument maker, Beckman Coulter, accused of patent infringement. After verdict, obtained ruling that Beckman had not infringed and that the patent was invalid for obviousness and because Beckman was the first inventor. The appellate court affirmed the invalidity ruling.
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Systems, Inc., 99 CV 0351 (S.D. Cal.), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 340 F.3d 1314, reh’g denied (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In jury trial and on appeal, successfully represented manufacturer of digital scanners accused of infringing several Hewlett-Packard patents. Client found not liable because the asserted patents were either invalid or not infringed.
Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass’n, 121 F.3d 516, amended, 133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 923 & 525 U.S. 810, reh’g denied, 525 U.S. 923 (1998).
Represented defendant, a medical-books publisher, and established misuse of AMA copyright.
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 50 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir.), cert. granted, 515 U.S. 1121, vacating right to jury trial, 515 U.S. 1182 (1995), on remand, 107 F.3d 1565 (1997), aff’g 834 F. Supp. 1246 and 847 F. Supp. 777 (S.D. Cal.).
Represented American Airlines and established that three asserted patents were invalid and not infringed. Also, obtained writ of certiorari on right to trial by jury in cases challenging a patent’s validity, causing withdrawal of jury demand, and vacatur of Federal Circuit ruling incorrectly finding right to trial by jury.
Other Noteworthy Cases
Lewis v. Moore et al., 861 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.)(certifying question) and subsequent affirmance, No. 15-13979 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2018).
Representing Masimo, obtained affirmance of summary judgment of no liability in product-liability and negligence case. Participants in a nationwide study alleged that customized pulse oximeters used in double blind nationwide study were defective because of the manner in which they reported oxygen saturation and that they increased their risk of harm. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had no evidence of any actual injury sufficient to warrant a trial and affirmed summary judgment.
In re Sotera Wireless, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Cal. July 18, 2017).
Representing Masimo in a bench trial, obtained a judgment that two former employees willfully misappropriated various trade secrets when they stole thousands of documents from Masimo upon leaving the company to join a competitor. As a result, the court enjoined the debtor from using any of the misappropriated materials or the employees in the product design process.
Ruhe v. Masimo Corp., 14 F.Supp.3d 1342 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2014).
Representing Masimo, persuaded a district court to vacate an arbitration award in a constructive wrongful termination action because of the arbitrator’s “evident partiality.” The award included over $5,000,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reinstated the award.
Superior Court for the State of California v. ISD Corp., AAA arbitration (2014).
Representing software vendor at trial and defeated claim brought by the state courts of California that they could terminate client’s supply of case management software despite various termination provisions. Pending client’s claim for attorney fees as prevailing party.
United States ex rel. Ruhe v. Masimo Corp., 977 F.Supp. 2d 981 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
Representing Masimo, obtained summary judgment against a group of former employees who alleged that Masimo caused false claims to the government in connection with its devices which noninvasively measure a patient’s hemoglobin. The district court rejected relators claims that the devices, known as Pronto, were worthless and thus any governmental payment for reimbursement was a false claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment.
Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279 and 605 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Appeal No. 2011-1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
In three appeals from two patent interferences against Covidien subsidiary Nellcor, represented medical-device maker Masimo and established that it was the first inventor of various algorithms for pulse oximeters to measure through motion.
Recognition
Awards & Honors
Mr. Re has received multiple awards and has been honored in both national and international forums for his legal accomplishments:
- Recognized in the 2024-2026 Edition of Chambers USA
- Recognized for outstanding work in patent law in the Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) “Patent 1000 Guide” for Litigation (2012-2026) and recognized nationally in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2023). The 2021 guide applauded Re for having “led trial teams to landmark victories backed up on appeal” with a client adding he “has an amazing ability to connect with juries and a passion for his craft.” The 2022 guide described him as “a master in the courtroom, with an unrivalled ability to communicate complicated technical matters in an understandable way.” The 2023 guide described him as someone who has “put in resonant performances for innovation leaders in important disputes and led many teams to success when there were significant gains to be made or losses to be suffered.”
- Recognized in World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) – USA Patents Rankings (2025)
- Named a Southern California “Super Lawyer” (2024-2026)
- Named in Orange County Business Journal’s annual list of “the 500 most influential people in Orange County.” (2025)
- Received “Litigation Star” and “National Practice Area Star” ranking in Benchmark Litigation’s U.S. Guide (2025-2026)
- Named in Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine’s “Global Leaders” guide (2022-2026)
- Named a “Life Science Star” by Legal Media Group (LMG) Life Sciences for General Patent Litigation (2025)
- Recognized in Lawdragon’s “500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” guide (2025)
- Named a “Patent Litigator of the Year” by World Intellectual Property Review’s Life Science Network (LSPN) (2025)
- Recognized in Lexology’s Who’s Who Legal Thought Leaders USA 2025-2026 guide
- Recognized in Lexology Index: IP 2025-2026 guide for outstanding Patent work
- Recognized in the “Best Lawyers 2025-2026 Guide” for Intellectual Property Litigation and Patent Litigation in Best Lawyers in America (2024-2025)
- Recognized by The Legal 500 “United States” for Patent Litigation (2024-2025)
- Named “Litigator of the Year (California)” at 2023 Managing IP Awards
- Recognized in Patexia’s 2023 PTAB Intelligence Report as a “Top Performer” based on activity and performance before the PTAB
- Recognized annually as a leading patent litigator by the “Chambers USA Guide” published by Chambers and Partners
- Recognized in the 2022 edition of Euromoney’s Expert Guides – Best of the Best USA for Patents
- Named a “World IP Leader” by World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) (2022 – 2025)
- Named a “Leading Litigator – IP Litigation” in the 2023-2024, 2026 edition of Lawdragon’s “500 Leading Litigators in America” guide
- Recognized as a Patent Star in Managing IP‘s “IP Stars” guide for his outstanding intellectual property legal work from 2014 to 2025
- Selected to the 2007 – 2024 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® for his work in Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation, and Patent Law. In 2010, 2012, 2017, 2021, 2023 and most recently 2024 he was named Orange County Intellectual Property and Patent Law “Lawyer of the Year”
- Recognized in The Legal 500 “United States” as being an “outstanding litigator”, noted for his work in obtaining a $466 million jury verdict in Masimo Corp. v. Philips Electronics (2015, 2022 – 2023)
- Repeatedly named to the Daily Journal‘s list of “Top Intellectual Property Lawyers”. He was once again named to the list of “Top IP Lawyers” in California for 2023
- Received “Local Litigation Star”, “California Litigation Star”, and “National Practice Area Star” rankings in Benchmark Litigation’s 2018-2021 and 2023-2024 guides, an definitive guide exclusively covering leading litigators in the U.S.
- Repeatedly selected by Super Lawyers® magazine, and featured as one of the top attorneys in Southern California and Orange County. In 2017, he was recognized as one of the top 50 attorneys in Orange County.
- Repeatedly recognized as a “Life Sciences Star” for Patent Litigation in Legal Media Group’s (LMG) “Life Sciences”. In 2018, he was noted in the guide as bringing “more than three decades of experience as an IP attorney, and is well-versed in handling jury trials and Federal Circuit Appeals”
- Named “Icon of IP” in Law360’s 2016 list of 25 most influential attorneys who have made their mark in intellectual property law over their careers.
- Recognized as a “Winning Litigator” by The National Law Journal (2015)
- Named a “Game Changer” in The Recorder’s “2015 Litigation Department of the Year” Awards (2015)
- Named as one of the “500 Leading Lawyers in America” by Lawdragon (2015)
- Named “MVP of the Year – Intellectual Property” by Law360 (2014)
- Named by the Daily Journal as one of the top “100 Leading Lawyers in California” in 2006 and 2015
- Listed annually in Who’s Who in America®
- Repeatedly named one of “The World’s Leading Patent Litigators” in the “IAM Patent Litigation 250″ published annually by IAM magazine
- Recognized by The National Law Journal as one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America” (2006)
- Listed annually in “The International Who’s Who of Patent Lawyers in Who’s Who Legal – The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers”
- Recipient of 2004 “CLAY Award” (California Lawyer Attorney of the Year for Intellectual Property) (2005 California Lawyer magazine)
- Repeatedly named by Euromoney Legal Media Group as one of the top patent law experts in the “Guide to the World’s Leading Patent Law Experts”.
- Has long received the highest (AV) rating from Martindale-Hubbell, now Martindale.com
- 1993 recipient of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s 20th Annual Rossman Memorial Award for writing the best article on intellectual property
News & Insights
Articles
Quoted in, “Industry Commenters Say Minerva Ruling is a Win for Employee Mobility,” by IPWatchdog (June 2021)
Quoted in, “Justices Lean Toward Limiting, Not Eliminating, Assignor Estoppel Doctrine in Minerva v. Hologic,” by IPWatchdog (April 2021)
Quoted in, “What To Watch As Justices Eye Restriction On Patent Attacks,” by Law 360 (April 2021)
Quoted in, “Supreme Court Case Pits Inventors Against Their Former Employers,” by Bloomberg Law (April 2021)
Quoted in, “Monster Energy Prevails on Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement Claims, Wins Punitive Damages,” (December 2018)
Quoted in “From NJ to Texas: How The Courts Fared At The Fed. Circ.” (February 2018)
Quoted in “The Biggest Patent Cases of 2017” by Law 360 (December 2017)
“TC Heartland Complicates Venue For Foreign Defendants,” Law 360 (June 2017)
“Manufacturers May Want to Lease — Not Sell — Their Patented Medical Devices,” Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry (MD+DI) (June 2017)
“Litigating for the Greater Good: Knobbe Martens Lawyer Scores Big Wins,” Of Counsel (March 2015)
“Why We Need Our Patent System: Masimo, OC’s Shining Example,” Orange County Business Journal (November 2014)
“Litigator of the Week: Joseph Re of Knobbe Martens,” The American Lawyer Litigation Daily (October 2014)
“Knobbe wins $466.7M for medical tech company,” quoted in the Daily Journal (October 2014)
Co-author, “Gunn v. Minton: The Supreme Court’s Correction of the Federal Circuit’s Overly Broad Assertion of Jurisdiction Over State-Law Claims,” 38 New Matter 5 (No. 1 Spring 2013)
Co-author, “The Pendulum Has Swung Too Far: Recent Misuse of the Entire Market Value Rule to Limit Reasonable-Royalty Patent Damages,” 84 Pat. Trademark & Copyright J. (BNA) 195 (June 1, 2012)
Law360 Q&A with Knobbe Martens’ Joseph Re, Portfolio Media, Inc. (June 2011)
“In Pfaff Case Court Clarifies On-Sale Bar,” Nat’l L.J., Feb. 8, 1999 (I.P. Supp.) at 1.
“Litigating Under Both Markman Decisions,” 1997 Patent Litigation 283 (Prac. Law Inst.).
“It’s Elementary: In Warner-Jenkenson, the Supreme court Upholds One Doctrine and Bolsters Another,” L.A. Daily J., Apr. 4, 1997, at 7.
“On Vacatur: Litigant’s Ability to ‘Wipe Slate clean’ Is Impaired,” L.A. Daily J., Apr. 7, 1995, at 7.
“Vacating Patent Invalidity Judgments Upon an Appellate Determination of Noninfringement,” 72 J. Pat. & Tm. Off. Soc’y 780 (1991), cited by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc. (1993).
“Using Rule 30(b)(6) for Corporate Depositions,” 3 Prac. Litigator 83 (No. 4) 1992).
“Parallel Prosecution: Effect of Patent Prosecution on Concurrent Litigation,” 73 J. Pat. & Tm. Off. Soc’y 965 (1991).
“Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Over Appeals From District Court Patent Decisions,” 16 AIPLA Q.J., 169 (1988).
Brief Writing and Oral Argument (9th ed. Oceana Pubs. 2005), co-author.
Cases and Materials on Remedies (6th ed. Foundation Press 2005), junior editor.
Chapter 186, “Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” in 8 West’s Federal Forms – National Courts (West Pub. 2002), co-author, with annual pocket part supplements which are up to date.
Chapter 5, “The Answer and Other Responsive Filings” in Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook (2nd ed. BNA Books 2006), co-author, with annual pocket part supplements which are up to date.
Speeches & Seminars
Supreme Court Reverses Trend on Juvenile Justice, Podcast – Bloomberg (April 2021)
“Appellate Strategies for Special Circumstances at the Federal Circuit: Mandamus, Stays and Expedited Appeals”, Federal Circuit Bench and Bar Conference, Nashville, Tennessee (June 23, 2016).
“Emerging Trends in Patent Litigation,” USC Gould School of Law 2016 Intellectual Property Institute, Los Angeles, California (February 9, 2016).
“Recent Supreme Court Patent Case Law Update,” presented at the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) 42nd Annual Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia (September 8, 2014).
“Litigating a Patent-Related Dispute in Court While the USPTO is Reexamining or Reviewing the Same Patent,” presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of the AIPLA in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (May 15, 2014).
“From Patents to Porn: The #Blurred Lines Between Intellectual Property #Trolls and Legitimate Intellectual Property Enforcement,” presented at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California (October 18, 2013).
“The Trial Lawyer’s Toolbox,” presented to the 37th Annual Intellectual Property Institute, IP Law Section, State Bar of California in San Diego, California (November 9, 2012).
“Patent Prosecution Through The Eyes of a Patent Litigator,” presented to the Washington State Patent Law Association in Seattle, Washington (September 19, 2012).
“Strategies for Multi-Defendant Patent Cases,” presented at the 2012 AIPLA Electronic and Computer Patent Law Summit in San Diego, California (April 2, 2012).
“Reasonable Royalty Patent Infringement Damages After Lucent, ResQNet and Uniloc,” presented at the Annual USC IP Symposium in Beverly Hills, CA (March 15, 2012).
“Disqualification of Law Firms In Patent Cases,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the AIPLA in Washington D.C. (October 21, 2011).
“Patent Prosecution Through The Eyes of a Patent Litigator,” presented to the 35th Annual Intellectual Property Institute, IP Law Section, State Bar of California in Napa, California (October 29, 2010).
“Erase the Mystery–Insight in Conducting Voir Dire,” presented to the ABTL 37th Annual Seminar in Kona, Hawaii (October 21, 2010).
Advocating Patent Cases With Emotion, presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of the AIPLA in New York, New York, (May 7, 2010).
“In Defense of Proving Patent Invalidity by Clear and Convincing Evidence,” presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of the AIPLA in Houston, Texas (May 15, 2008).
