Jonathan M. Strang

Washington, D.C.
  • 555 Eleventh Street, NW
  • Suite 1000
  • Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
  • USA
 
 

Jonathan Strang represents clients in a diverse range of technical industries in patent litigation matters, with a focus on proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Mr. Strang regularly represents plaintiffs and defendants in the PTAB and before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He founded and served as the Editor-in-Chief of the PTAB Bar Association’s “PTAB Roundup” newsletter for six years and is currently the Chair of the Association’s Communications Committee.

Before attending law school, Mr. Strang served as an officer in the US Navy Submarine Force where, in addition to his warfare specialty, he was a nuclear and electrical engineer. He then spent six years in the private sector spearheading numerous hardware and software development projects.

Mr. Strang clerked for Judge Kimberly Moore at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams at the US Court of Federal Claims. He earned his JD from the George Mason University School of Law, where he served as executive editor of the Federal Circuit Bar Journal.

Mr. Strang advises clients in a diverse range of technical industries including:

  • Design and manufacturing
  • Semiconductors
  • Computer hardware and software
  • Telecommunications

In addition, Mr. Strang provides clients with a wealth of engineering knowledge in the specific areas of:

  • User interface design
  • Software development
  • Electronics
  • Electrical and mechanical control systems
  • Power generation systems

Mr. Strang’s recent PTAB experience includes representing:

  • Velodyne LiDAR, the patent owner in two inter partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed by Quanergy. In district court, Velodyne had alleged that Quanergy infringes Velodyne’s patent for a spinning LiDAR sensor that is used to detect and map terrain in three dimensions, and serves as the “vision” for self-driving cars. Quanergy responded by filing two petitions for IPR challenging Velodyne’s asserted patent claims.  Mr. Strang led Latham’s effort, obtaining final written decisions confirming the validity of all of Velodyne’s patent claims. Quanergy appealed to the Federal Circuit, and Latham prevailed again, obtaining a precedential opinion affirming the PTAB’s decisions.
  • Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. in a series of five IPRs filed against Seoul Semiconductor’s patents covering various LED technologies. Latham successfully saved all but one of the challenged claims, obtaining a denial of institution in one IPR, final written decisions affirming the validity of all patent claims in two other IPRs, and a final written decision confirming the validity of all but one claim in a third final written decision. With the background of these victories, the remaining IPR settled.
  • Abbott Laboratories, one of the top medical device makers in the world, in two IPRs filed in response to a patent infringement lawsuit brought by a competitor in district court. The competitor alleged that Abbott’s MitraClip, the only FDA-approved transcatheter-based mitral repair device on the market, infringes three patents. MitraClip is one of Abbott’s flagship products with sales exceeding over US$400 million a year. Abbott filed two IPRs, and in response, the competitor dropped all challenged claims, handing a huge victory to Abbott.
  • Abbott Laboratories in an IPR filed in response to a patent infringement lawsuit filed by FlexStent, LLC, in district court. FlexStent alleged that Abbott’s Xience stents, the best-selling drug-eluting stents on the market, infringes its patent. In response, Latham filed an IPR seeking to invalidate the patent. Given the petition’s strength and the likelihood that the patent would not emerge from the IPR, FlexStent agreed to a stay of the district court. The PTAB sided with Abbott on all aspects of the IPR, including claim construction issues and evidentiary motions and invalidated the patent, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • Jaguar Land Rover Limited (JLR), in two IPRs filed against JLR’s patent. JLR sued Bentley Motors, one of the JLR’s direct competitors, for infringement based on Bentley’s decision to incorporate Jaguar’s ground-breaking patented technology that enables everyday drivers to tackle multiple terrains, such as sand, dirt, and rocks, with the twist of a knob in its luxury vehicles. In response, Bentley attempted to secure a quick victory, filing two IPRs challenging Jaguar’s single patent. Mr. Strang led the Latham team that  persuaded the PTAB to deny both IPR petitions, one on the merits and the other on discretionary grounds. With the validity of its patent confirmed, JLR was able to reach an agreement with Bentley and the infringement case was dismissed.
  • Volvo Cars of North America LLC and Volvo Cars Corporation in IPRs prepared in response to a patent infringement suit. Watlow Electric Manufacturing Company asserted two patents against Volvo, each of which relates to layered heating technology. Watlow alleged that the heaters in certain hybrid electric Volvo vehicles use Watlow’s technology. Watlow agreed to dismiss one of the two patents after reviewing an IPR petition challenging one of the patents, however, still sought a lump-sum payment and significant running royalty for the remaining patent. Latham filed the other IPR petition and obtained a stay of the district court case. The PTAB invalidated all claims of the remaining patent asserted by Watlow Electric Manufacturing Company, and the parties subsequently agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.
  • A major technology company in a series of IPRs against AGIS Software Development, LLC.  AGIS had sued Latham’s client in district court, and the client responded by filing IPRs challenging AGIS’s patents. Led by Mr. Strang, Latham developed an innovative IPR strategy, breaking the patents’ priority chains to use AGIS’s earlier-filed patents in the same family as prior art. After the PTAB agreed that AGIS’s patents were not entitled to their earlier filing date, the parties settled. AGIS later asserted its patents against another Latham client, and Latham recycled its previous IPRs — prompting a quick settlement.
  • Schlumberger, the world’s largest oil services company, in IPRs filed in response to a patent infringement suit brought by EnerPol in district court. EnerPol alleged willful infringement of a patent it contended covered most of Schlumberger's North American fracking revenue — virtually every hydraulic fracturing job Schlumberger had performed domestically since 2012. Schlumberger filed IPRs challenging EnerPol’s patent, forcing EnerPol to choose between establishing a claim construction that would support infringement but result in an invalid patent or saving its patent by arguing for a narrower construction that avoided the prior art but precluded infringement. EnerPol chose to save its claims at the PTAB. Back at court, the parties held a claim construction hearing, where Latham swept all claim construction issues at a Markman hearing. The judge largely agreeing with Latham's arguments that resulted in a stipulated judgment of non-infringement. The plaintiff then appealed to Federal Circuit, where the panel unanimously issued a decision finding no error in the construction and affirmed the final judgment of non-infringement.
  • InfoBionic, a venture-backed manufacturer of wireless remote arrhythmia detection and monitoring system, after taking over as defense and IPR counsel in two cases with seven asserted patents and trade secret misappropriation claims brought by CardioNet. Over course of the matter, Latham invalidated two patents and all but one claim of a third expired patent in IPRs that were affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
 
 
 
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.