Patricia Young

Silicon Valley
  • 140 Scott Drive
  • Menlo Park, CA 94025
  • USA

Patricia Young has significant experience litigating and managing high-stakes, complex, multi-patent, multi-defendant and multi-jurisdictional cases. She has also counseled clients on patent and intellectual property issues arising from corporate acquisitions.

Ms. Young has litigated patent cases for a variety of industries and fields including:

  • DRM technology
  • File system and storage software and hardware
  • Telecommunications
  • Smartphone and cellular technology
  • Medical devices
  • Protein engineering
  • Sequencing technology
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Memory technology
  • Targeted advertising and e-commerce
  • Online gaming
  • Internet and networking technology
  • Microprocessor architecture and power management technology

Ms. Young is a collaborator on the second and third editions of the Federal Judicial Center’s patent manual for judges, the Patent Case Management Judicial Guide (2012, 2016), which provides guidance about management of commonly arising issues in patent cases.

Her extensive pro bono work includes Social Security disability cases, domestic violence matters, veteran disability benefit appeals, housing matters, and a matter for the Innocence Project. She was named a Pro Bono Honoree by Legal Services NYC (LSNYC) in 2007 and also received the California State Bar Wiley M. Manuel Award for pro bono service in 2013.

Ms. Young received her JD from the Harvard School of Law where she served as the office coordinator for the Prison Legal Assistance Project's Executive Board. She holds an SB in Chemistry and an SB in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where she worked as an undergraduate researcher for the chemistry department.

Ms. Young's experience includes representing:

  • Arista in an ITC enforcement proceeding and an ITC modification proceeding relating to patent infringement claims involving switching operating systems and protocols. (Cisco v. Arista
  • Arista in California Superior Court defending against software developer, Optumsoft, concerning trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract claims.
  • Codexis in a case over infringement of ten Codexis patents, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, tortious interference, and unfair competition relating to engineered enzymes and biocatalysis technology. (Codexis v. EnzymeWorks (N.D. Cal.))
  • Vita-Mix in a case regarding infringement of Vita-Mix patent relating to blender technology. (Vita-Mix v. Blendtec (N.D. Oh.)
  • Capital One in a five-patent infringement case brought by Intellectual Ventures (IV). Latham successfully defeated all five patents, including two on summary judgment of invalidity based on lack of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. (Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One (E.D. Va.))
  • Capital One in follow-on five-patent infringement action brought by IV. (Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One (D. Md.))
  • Amazon in a seven-patent case relating to computer systems and storage used for e-commerce. Obtained summary judgement of invalidity on all asserted claims. (Telebuyer LLC v. (W.D.Wa.))
  •  Life Technologies in a two-patent infringement case brought by Enzo Life Sciences relating to nucleic acid probe and array technology. (Enzo Life Sciences v. Life Technologies (D.Del.)) 
  • Apple in numerous matters.
  • Oracle in a multi-patent lawsuit related to cloud computing technology and Oracle databases. The case settled on favorable terms. (Clouding IP v. Oracle Corporation (D.Del.))
  • Oracle in a patent infringement case regarding the Oracle Social Network. (Real Time Social Inventions v. Oracle (D. Del.))
  • MusicMatch, Inc. (Yahoo!) in a patent infringement lawsuit involving software protection technology. (Tse v. Apple, et al. (N.D. Cal. after transfer from D. Md.))
  • Jang in Jang v. Boston Scientific (C.D. Cal.)*
  • Yahoo! in Walker Digital v. Yahoo! (D. Del.)*

*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.