Skip to content
IP + Technology Law

Aaron S. Johnson

Partner
Orange County
aaron.johnson@knobbe.com
949-760-0404
vcard iconDownload vCard

Overview

A partner in our Orange County office, Aaron understands that intellectual property is a strategic business asset. He takes a holistic approach in evaluating his clients’ business objectives and providing advice tailored to those objectives. His practice includes patent procurement and portfolio management (domestic and international), due diligence, and patentability, infringement, and invalidity investigations. Aaron has particular expertise in helping clients build and leverage their patent portfolios for investment, acquisition, licensing, and enforcement purposes.

Aaron represents a diverse set of clients from start-ups to multi-national corporations across a variety of technologies, including medical devices and patient monitoring technologies, consumer electronics and wearables, automotive accessories, furniture products, and building and construction materials and systems. As a former engineer, Aaron has a keen ability to understand complex technologies and identify key IP issues.

Aaron joined the firm in 2017 and became a partner in 2024.

Education

  • University of California - Irvine - School of Law (J.D., 2017), summa cum laude
  • University of California - Berkeley (M.S. Civil Engineering, 2012), (Structural Engineering, Mechanics, and Materials Program)
  • University of California - Irvine (B.S. Civil Engineering, 2011), magna cum laude, Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honorary Society, Gary Guymon Academic Achievement in Civil Engineering Scholarship, Chemistry Achievement Award (Vanguard Univ.)

Bar Admissions

  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Affiliations

Orange County Intellectual Property Law Association

Orange County Bar Association

News & Insights

Articles

Latest Updates and News

Blog - Litigation
Nov 2020
No Shortcuts to the “Reasonable Pertinence” Analysis in the Analogous Art Inquiry
DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC Before Prost, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A determination as to whether a reference is analogous art to a claimed invention requires, in part, an identification and comparison of the purposes or problems to which the reference and the invention relate, from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”).
Blog - Litigation
Jun 2020
Preamble Found Limiting Where It Supplied Antecedent Basis for Other Claim Limitations
SHOES BY FIREBUG LLC v. STRIDE RITE CHILDREN'S GROUP Before Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In similar claims of two related patents, one preamble was limiting because it supplied antecedent basis for a subsequent structural claim limitation, and another preamble that supplied no antecedent basis was not limiting.
Blog - Litigation
May 2020
IPR Petitioners May Not Raise Appointments Clause Challenges Under Arthrex
CIENA CORPORATION v. OYSTER OPTICS, LLC Before Moore, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Affirmatively petitioning for IPR waives the petitioner’s Appointments Clause challenge, such that the petitioner may not request remand and a new panel under Arthrex.
Blog - Litigation
Feb 2020
Non-Expert Testimony on Obviousness Is Inadmissible
HVLPO2, LLC v. OXYGEN FROG, LLC Before Newman, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Summary: It is an abuse of discretion to permit a witness to testify as an expert on issues of noninfringement or invalidity unless that witness is qualified as an expert in the relevant art.
Blog - Litigation
Sep 2019
Design Patent Figures Are Not the Only Source of Claim Limitations
CURVER LUXEMBOURG, SARL v. HOME EXPRESSIONS INC. Before Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Claim language specifying the article of manufacture can limit the scope of a design patent where the article is not shown in the figures.  
Blog - Litigation
Jul 2019
Parroting Language of Venue Statute Is Not Enough to Avoid Dismissal
WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY Before Lourie, Mayer, and Reyna.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Summary:  To establish proper venue, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has a regular and established place of business physically located in the judicial district. Westech sued 3M for patent infringement.  In a motion to dismiss, 3M argued that venue was improper because it did not have a regular and established place of business in the judicial district.  In response, Westech argued, in part, that the presence of 3M’s sales representatives and actual sales in the district supported venue.