Julie Holloway, resident in the firm's San Francisco and Silicon Valley offices, is Co-chair of the San Francisco office's Litigation & Trial Department and a member of the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice.
Ms. Holloway has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation through trial. She has tried 14 patent cases in district court and before the US International Trade Commission. 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.
Ms. Holloway is nationally recognized as a top IP litigator. She was highlighted as a leading patent litigator by Intellectual Asset Management in their IAM Patent 1000 - The World's Leading Patent Practitioners Guide, in 2014, 2015 and 2016, noting that she is “a force in San Francisco,” “exceptionally good,” “possesses a prescient mind when it comes to developments in information technology,” and "demonstrates real creativity and finely tuned client management finesse.” Ms. Holloway was among the 2016 and 2013 Top Women Leaders in Tech Law by The Recorder, and has been recognized as a leading patent litigator by The Legal 500 US (2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012). She has also been named as one of the Top 75 IP Litigators in California by The Daily Journal (2016, 2012) for her jury trial win for NVIDIA in an eight-patent case filed by Samsung (2016) and for her work in defeating patent claims made at the US ITC against AU Optronics by Thomson Licensing (2012). Additionally, Ms. Holloway has been recognized in Northern California Super Lawyers 2014-16 for intellectual property.
Ms. Holloway holds a BS and MS in electrical engineering and prior to practicing law, she worked as an engineer for several years. 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.
- “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
- Moderator, “Mind your Manners! or, Ethics and Inequitable Conduct Before the PTAB," PTAB Bar Association Inaugural Conference, March 3, 3017
- 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
Julie Holloway is one of only a handful of attorneys 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 has tried four patent cases in the past year alone.
Ms. Holloway's representative cases include:
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. NVIDIA Corporation – Won a jury trial on behalf of 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. Over 14 months, Ms. Holloway and the team whittled away at the case for NVIDIA. Samsung dropped its patents, one by one. By the time trial started only three patents remained and a few days in, the judge declared a mistrial as to 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. v. ZTE Corporation – Won a jury trial on behalf of InterDigital Communications 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 particular confronted ZTE’s expert with overwhelming evidence that his sole non-infringement argument was simply wrong. After deliberating less than one day, the jury found all three of InterDigital’s patents were valid and infringed.
- 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.*
- Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., U.S.D.C. (D.Del.), CV 00-796-RRM– Represented 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. *
* This client was represented by Ms. Holloway while she was employed at another law firm.