Julie Holloway, resident in the firm's San Francisco and Silicon Valley offices, is Co-chair of the San Francisco office's Litigation Department and a member of the firm's Intellectual Property Practice Group.
Ms. Holloway has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation through trial. She has tried several patent infringement cases in district court and before the US International Trade Commission. Ms. Holloway often represents clients in the information technology industry, particularly electronics, software, and mechanics.
Ms. Holloway is nationally recognized as a top IP litigator. She was recently highlighted as a leading patent litigator by Intellectual Asset Management in their IAM Patent 1000 - The World's Leading Patent Practitioners 2014 Guide, noting that she "demonstrates real creativity and finely tuned client management finesse" and is "particularly adept in her handling of contentious discovery matters and pre-trial strategic skirmishes with opposing counsel." She has also been recognized as a leading patent litigator by The Legal 500 US (2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012), named one of the 2012 Top 75 IP Litigators in California by The Daily Journal, and among the 2013 Top Women Leaders in Tech Law by The Recorder.
Ms. Holloway holds a BS and MS in electrical engineering and prior to practicing law, she was an electrical engineer in the communications and signal processing field. She is a member of the Intellectual Property section of the American Bar Association, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Federal Circuit Bar Association and ITC Trial Lawyers Association.
- "Must direct infringement be masterminded?," Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal, May 16, 2014
- "Patent Holders Prefer ITC," co-author with Bert Reiser and Michael Ladra, The Recorder, November 4, 2011
- "Employees' Inventions: Who Owns What Rights?" Law Journal Newsletters: The Intellectual Property Strategist, April 2008
- "Creation and Transfers of Technology: Intellectual Property Law and Other Applicable Non-Tax Rules," Chapter on U.S. intellectual property law and related tax rules, Intellectual Property Taxation, published by the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation
- "Nuts and Bolts of ITC Investigations," Law Journal Newsletters: The Intellectual Property Strategist, April 2006
- Panelist, "Multidistrict Litigation, Forum Selection, and Transfer: Tips and Trends," 15th Annual Silicon Valley Advanced Patent Law Institute, December 12, 2014
- Panelist, "Claim Construction and De Novo Review," 14th Annual Silicon Valley Advanced Patent Law Institute, December 12, 2013
- Moderator, "What is That Patent Really Worth? Courts Take a Hard Look at the 'Reasonable Royalty' Calculation," 13th Annual Silicon Valley Advanced Patent Law Institute, December 6, 2012
- Panelist, "Patent Reform - (280B),” 9th Annual Stanford E-Commerce Best Practices Conference, June 18, 2012
- Panelist, “Filing Patent Reexaminations As A Useful Litigation Tool,” Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association, January 26, 2012
- Panelist, ”Practitioners Panel,” Improving the USPTO ~ District Court Interface, the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, June 7, 2011
Ms. Holloway's representative cases include:
- InterDigital Communications Inc. v. ZTE Corporation - Won a jury trial on behalf of InterDigital, developer of wireless technologies for mobile devices, networks, and services, in a patent infringement case in the US District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of a number of patents relating to mobile phone devices that use 3G and/or 4G wireless technology, including products such as cellphones, mobile hotspots, USB sticks and tablets. The jury found that three InterDigital patents were valid and infringed. Ms. Holloway is also a part of the team representing InterDigital in a parallel Section 337 proceeding before the US International Trade Commission against several cell phone manufacturers.
- In re Certain Electronic Devices Having a Retractable USB Connector, Inv. No. 337-TA-843 – Represented General Imaging Company in a case filed by Anu IP, a non-practicing entity, against several manufacturers of consumer products with USB connectors. Persuaded the Administrative Law Judge to consider construing a case-dispositive term very early in the case – a very unusual step in the ITC. The case settled just hours after the Administrative Law Judge granted the motion to secure early Markman proceedings as to that term.
- Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-749 – Representing respondent AU Optronics in a multiple-patent case filed by complainant Thomson Licensing in the International Trade Commission. After a one-week trial, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination, finding that AU Optronics did not infringe any of Thomson’s patents, and invalidating most of the asserted claims. The ALJ’s finding of no violation was upheld by the Commission.
- AU Optronics v. LG Display, D. Del., Case No. 07-357-JJF – Represented counterclaimant AU Optronics in a multi-patent case against LG Display involving liquid crystal display technology. After a one-week bench trial, the court ruled in favor of AU Optronics on every claim construction issue, and found all four patents valid and infringed.
- CCCC v. VIA, N.D. Cal., Case No. C-05-1668 RMW, Fed. Cir., Case No. 2010-1040, 1041 (appeal) – Represented defendant VIA Technologies in patent infringement case involving bus technology filed by Acacia entity CCCC. Won summary judgment of noninfringement in district court. Successfully argued appeal on behalf of VIA; Federal Circuit upheld district court's claim construction and determination that VIA did not infringe.*
- ActivIdentity v. Intercede, N.D. Cal., CV-04577-VRW – Represented plaintiff ActivIdentity in a patent case involving smart card technology. Case settled, with Intercede taking a license.*
- Opti v. Atmel Corp., E.D. Tex. 2:07-cv-00278-TJW – Represented defendant Atmel Corporation in a patent case involving bus technology. Case settled on very favorable terms.*
* This client was represented by Ms. Holloway while she was employed at another law firm.