Customer Support: 800-526-4902
 

A. James Isbester

LinkedIn
Partner
San Francisco,  CA  U.S.A.
Phone+1 415.273.4335

Peer Rating
 5.0/5.0
AV® Preeminent

Client Rating

Featured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer IconFeatured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer Icon
Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials Ratings & ReviewsOther Offices
 

Practice Areas

  • Patent Litigation
  • Intellectual Property
  • Trademark & Trade Dress Litigation
  • Transactional Intellectual Property
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Trade Secret
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Licensing & Procurement
 
University Princeton University, B.S.E., Chemical Engineering, 1983
 
Law SchoolOsgoode Hall Law School, LL.B., 1987; University of California, Davis School of Law, 1987
 
Admitted1987, California; District of Columbia; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan; U.S. District Courts for all Districts of California
 
Biography

James Isbester has been advising and representing clients in intellectual property and technology-related matters since 1987. Although his clients span the business world, most of his work is on behalf of high technology and medical device companies.

Mr. Isbester has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in jury trials, bench trials, various state and federal courts of appeal, and arbitrations.

Mr. Isbester was named a Northern California Super Lawyer in 2011 for Intellectual Property Litigation by SuperLawyers magazine and he is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Select Representative Cases

Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. v. Alcon
Represented Abbott Medical Optics (AMO, f/k/a Advanced Medical Optics), a supplier of advanced refractive technologies, as plaintiff in one action and as defendant in three other related actions and in reexamination of patents involving ophthalmic surgical products. Case settled with payment to AMO of $121 million and cross-licenses after AMO obtained jury verdict of infringement and judgment of $235 million and invalidated two of Alcon's patents in reexamination (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware and Northern District of Texas; United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; United States Patent and Trademark Office).

Lochner Technologies, LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Hitachi America Ltd. et al.
Represented Hitachi America Ltd. in a patent infringement action on a patent related to modular computer systems. Mr. Isbester was successful in settling the case on behalf of Hitachi America Ltd., very early in the case, with no financial recovery for the plaintiff.

Resonate Inc. v. Nortel Networks Corporation
Lead counsel for Nortel Networks in patent infringement action relating to switching in large Internet server sites. Won summary judgment of non-infringement. On appeal, certain claim terms were redefined and the matter remanded. Won a second motion for summary judgment, affirmed on appeal.

Molecular Probes v. Texas Fluorescence Laboratories
Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent infringement case involving fluorinated xanthene fluorophores. After district court accepted plaintiff's position on all disputed claim terms, the defendant took a license and the parties settled.

Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Saputo Cheese, Inc.
Lead counsel for food products company accused of infringing U.S. patent relating to enzymes used in cheese manufacture. Won summary judgment of non-infringement.

Surety Technologies, Inc. v. Entrust Technologies, Inc.
Co-counsel for defendant Canadian data security company accused of infringing patent relating to encryption techniques. Responsible for liability aspects of case. Won jury verdict of patent invalidity.

Pulse-Link Inc. v. Tzero Technologies Inc.
Represented Tzero Technologies in patent infringement actions relating to ultra wideband communications technologies. The case settled following discovery.

Professional & Community Activities

American Bar Association, Member

Litigation Counsel of America, Member

Editorial Advisory Board, MX Update, Member

Advisory Council, IP Osgoode, Member

Publications

31 May 2011, What You Know May Hurt You, but What You Try to Avoid Knowing May Hurt Just as Much: The Supreme Court Requires Knowledge of Patent Infringement to Justify Liability for Inducing Infringement, but "Willful Blindness" to Such Knowledge Equally Satisfies the "Knowledge" Requirement Under §271(b), Legal Alerts

26 May 2011, Back to the Future: the Federal Circuit Clarifies and Raises Standards for Proving Inequitable Conduct by Defining Requirements that Amount to Fraud on the Patent Office, the Historic Linguistic Description of Conduct to Render Patents Unenforceable, Legal Alerts

01 November 2010, Selecting A Forum From Among The District Courts and The International Trade Commission
Source: Practicing Law Institute, Patent Litigation 2010, Articles

01 August 2010, A Patently Good Idea
Source: MX: Medtech Executive, Articles

News

22 July 2011, Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Named 2011 Northern California Super Lawyers, News Releases

25 March 2011, Kilpatrick Townsend's Annie Rogaski to Serve as Chair and Mike Rosato and James Isbester to Serve as Featured Speakers at Corporate Counsel's 7th Annual IP Counsel Forum, News Releases

Events

01 August 2011, Defending Against the NPE, Events

25 March 2011, Updates on Patent Reform 2011, Events

20 October 2010, Exploring the Changing Patent Litigation Landscape, Events

04 August 2010, Early Case Evaluation and Pre-Litigation Counseling, Events

20 July 2010, What Bilski Means for E-Commerce Patents, Events

03 June 2009, Trade Secrets: Cost Effective Protection for Valuable Business Information, Events

03 April 2009, The Ethics of IP Litigation, Events

04 December 2008, Preventatives and Alternatives in IP Disputes - A View of IP Litigation from an Expert Witness and Neutral, Events

11 October 2007, National Standards for Patentability, Events

01 July 2007, As the Supreme Shake Up The Patent World, New Strategies Emerge, Events

03 April 2007, Issues in International IP Management, Events

26 January 2007, The Uncomfortable Role of the Advocate in Claim Construction, Events

01 December 2006, Negotiating Licenses Under The Threat Of Litigation, Events

 
ISLN906245253
 

Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com

Subscribe to this feed

Back to the Future: the Federal Circuit Clarifies and Raises Standards for Proving Inequitable Conduct by Defining Requirements that Amount to Fraud on the Patent Office, the Historic Linguistic Description of Conduct to Render Patents Unenforceable
Vanessa M. Blake,Wendy A. Choi,Jason D. Gardner,A. James Isbester,Dean W. Russell,Wade H. Walker,Frederick L. Whitmer, August 18, 2011
On May 25, 2011, a split en banc panel of the Federal Circuit laid down a new articulation of the standards for determining whether inequitable conduct had occurred in connection with a patent’s prosecution as a basis to render unenforceable an otherwise valid patent. In many respects, though...

What You Know May Hurt You, but What You Try to Avoid Knowing May Hurt Just as Much: The Supreme Court Requires Knowledge of Patent Infringement to Justify Liability for Inducing Infringement, but “Willful Blindness” to Such Knowledge Equally Satisfies the “Knowledge” Requirement Under §271(b)
William H. Boice,A. James Isbester,Frederick L. Whitmer, August 18, 2011
On May 31, 2011, the Supreme Court clarified an important question of patent law, namely, the level of knowledge required of a defendant accused of inducing patent infringement. Is actual knowledge required, or is a “should have known” standard sufficient to sustain liability for...


View Ratings & Reviews
Profile Visibility
#853 in weekly profile views out of 20,009 lawyers in San Francisco, California
#25,998 in weekly profile views out of 1,447,639 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

A. James Isbester
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

San Francisco, CA 94111




Loading...
 

Professional Networking for Legal Professionals Only

Quickly and easily expand your professional
network - join the premier global network for legal professionals only. It's powered by the
Martindale-Hubbell database - over 1,000,000 lawyers strong.
Join Now