Ms. Holloway was recognized as one of the Top Women Leaders in Tech Law" for her work on notable patent infringement cases related to cutting-edge technologies.The Recorder 2016

Julie Madeleine Holloway

San Francisco | Silicon Valley
  • 505 Montgomery Street
  • Suite 2000
  • San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
  • USA
 
 

Julie Holloway, Co-Chair of the San Francisco office's Litigation & Trial Department, is nationally recognized as a leading IP litigator and trial lawyer. She holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in electrical engineering and prior to practicing law, she worked as an engineer for several years.

Ms. Holloway has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation through trial and appeal. She has tried 15 patent cases in district court and before the US International Trade Commission (ITC). She has particular experience in cross-examining PhD technical experts on the complex technical issues that go to the heart of her opponent’s case. Clients have described her cross-examinations as the high point of the trial.

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. Additionally, she was the Chair of the Inaugural Conference Committee for the PTAB Association.

Publications
  • “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 US 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
Speaking Engagements
  • Moderator, “Mind your Manners! or, Ethics and Inequitable Conduct Before the PTAB," PTAB Bar Association Inaugural Conference, March 3, 2017  
  • Panelist, “Prosecution Ethics & PTAB,” 17th Annual Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute: Silicon Valley, December 9, 2016  
  • Panelist, “Developments in Case Management,” Patent Law and Policy Conference, December 1, 2016  
  • Panelist, “View from the Hill on Patent Reform,” 2015 ChIPs Women in IP Global Summit, Wednesday, October 28, 2015
  • Panelist, “Recent Developments on Patent: Legislation and Cases,” 4th Annual US-China IP Conference: Best Practices for Innovation and Creativity, October 8, 2015
  • 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 is one of only a handful of lawyers in the country who combines nearly 20 years of extensive trial work with in-depth knowledge and technical experience garnered from her pre-law career as an electrical engineer. This coupling of legal and scientific acumen makes Ms. Holloway unique in her field, and she has become the go-to lawyer for global industry leaders facing down enterprise-threatening intellectual property cases. Notably, she recently tried four patent cases in a single year.

Ms. Holloway's experience in district court includes representing:

  • NVIDIA Corporation, in an eight-patent infringement suit brought by Samsung in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia relating to mobile phones and tablet computers that contain graphics processing units. For over 14 months, Ms. Holloway and the team worked on the case for NVIDIA. Samsung eventually dropped nearly all its patents. By the time trial started only three patents remained and a few days in, the judge declared a mistrial on two of the remaining patents due to misconduct by Samsung’s expert. The trial proceeded on Samsung’s lone remaining patent with Ms. Holloway taking point on all the key examinations. The jury deliberated for less than a day before finding in February 2016 that none of the asserted claims were infringed, and one of those claims was also invalid.
  • InterDigital Communications Inc., developer of wireless technologies for mobile devices, networks, and services, in a high-profile three-patent case against ZTE. At trial, Ms. Holloway examined all the experts with respect to one of the patents, and in a devastating cross-examination confronted ZTE’s expert with overwhelming evidence that his sole non-infringement argument was incorrect. After deliberating less than one day, the jury found all three of InterDigital’s patents were valid and infringed.
  • AU Optronics as counterclaimant in a multi-patent case against LG Display involving LCD 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.
  • GEICO as defendant in a case filed by Ronald Katz involving patents on call center processing. The case settled on favorable terms after it was remanded from the MDL court to the trial court.
  • VIA Technologies as defendant in a patent infringement case involving bus technology. Won summary judgment of noninfringement. Successfully argued appeal and the Federal Circuit upheld the district court's claim construction and determination that VIA did not infringe.*
  • ActivIdentity as plaintiff in a patent case involving smart card technology. The case settled, with the defendant taking a license.*
  • Atmel Corporation as defendant in a patent case involving bus technology. The case settled on very favorable terms.*
  • Broadcom Corporation as defendant in a multi-patent infringement case filed in US District Court for the District of Delaware. The jury, following a three-week trial, found that Broadcom had not infringed either of Intel's patents in question. The jury also found Intel's computer networking patent to be invalid. This case was described as one of the top 20 defense verdicts of 2001 by The National Law Journal.*

Ms. Holloway's representative experience before the ITC includes representing:

  • AU Optronics as respondent in a multiple-patent case filed by complainant Thomson Licensing. After a one-week trial, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determining, finding that AU Optronics did not infringe any of Thomson’s patents, and invalidating most of the asserted claims.
  • AU Optronics as respondent in a multiple-patent case regarding liquid crystal display devices, filed by complainant Samsung.
  • AU Optronics as complainant in a multiple-patent case regarding flat panel display devices, against respondent Samsung and others.
  • General Imaging Company in a case filed by Anu IP, a non-practicing entity, against several manufacturers of consumer products with USB connectors. Latham persuaded the Administrative Law Judge to consider construing a case-dispositive term very early in the case, which is 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.
  • Tessera Technologies, Inc. in an action involving allegations that Texas Instruments and Sharp Corporation manufactured and imported semiconductor devices in "chip scale packages" that infringed two Tessera patents. Obtained a completely favorable Initial Determination from the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission affirmed.*

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham.

 
 
 
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.