Repeatedly recognized as a leading patent litigator, with clients noting that she is “a force in San Francisco,” “couples steely trial skills with excellent technical knowledge,” “demonstrates real creativity,” “possesses a prescient mind when it comes to developments in information technology,” and is “responsible for many textbook-worthy cross-examinations.”Intellectual Asset Management IAM Patent 1000 2014-2019

Julie Madeleine Holloway

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

Julie Holloway, a partner in Latham & Watkins’ San Francisco office and former Co-Chair of the firm’s San Francisco Litigation & Trial Department, is nationally recognized as a leading IP litigator and trial lawyer. She combines outstanding trial skills and a strong technical background to provide clients a unique edge in their complex patent cases.

Ms. Holloway has tried more than 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 at the heart of her opponent’s case. Clients have described her cross-examinations as the high point of the trial.

Ms. Holloway is one of only a handful of lawyers in the country with a combination of more than 20 years of extensive trial work and in-depth knowledge and technical experience garnered from her pre-law education and career as an electrical engineer. This coupling of legal and scientific acumen makes Ms. Holloway unique in her field and the go-to lawyer for technology companies in high-stakes intellectual property disputes. Notably, she recently tried four patent cases in a single year — two for plaintiffs and two for defendants.

She is a member of the Intellectual Property section of the American Bar Association, Federal Circuit Bar Association, and ITC Trial Lawyers Association. Additionally, she was the Chair of the Inaugural Conference Committee for the PTAB Association.

Ms. Holloway’s cases include representing:

District Court
  • NVIDIA Corporation, in an eight-patent infringement suit brought by Samsung relating to mobile phones and tablet computers that contain graphics processing units. Samsung eventually dropped nearly all its patents. The judge then declared a mistrial on two of the three remaining patents. 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 for NVIDIA.
  • 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. In a devastating cross-examination she 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.
  • VIA Technologies as defendant in a patent infringement case involving bus technology. Won summary judgment of non-infringement. Successfully argued appeal and the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s claim construction and determination that VIA did not infringe.*
  • Broadcom Corporation as defendant in a multi-patent infringement case. 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. The National Law Journal named the case one of the top 20 defense verdicts of the year.*
International Trade Commission
  • Comcast as respondent in multi-patent case filed by Rovi. After a one-week trial, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found no violation. 
  • Arista as respondent in multi-patent case filed by Cisco in an enforcement proceeding involving switching operating systems and protocols. Retained to replace prior counsel after adverse determinations in the underlying ITC matter. After a one-week trial the ALJ found that Arista’s redesigned products did not infringe.
  • AU Optronics as respondent in a multiple-patent case filed by complainant Thomson Licensing. After a one-week trial, the ALJ 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. Persuaded the ALJ 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 ALJ 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 ALJ 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.