Michael K. Jones

Michael K. Jones

Partner

Philadelphia, PA
Phone: 215.981.4405    Fax: 215.981.4750

jonesmk@pepperlaw.com

Representative patent litigation cases in which Mr. Jones has participated include:

  • In-Depth Test LLC v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., case 1-14-cv-00888 (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware) – representing defendant in a patent infringement action in which US Patent No. 6,792,373, entitled “Methods and apparatus for semiconductor testing” is being asserted. The accused products relate to semiconductor test systems and methods. The case is in the pre-discovery stage and is currently stayed pending resolution of several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions and a Covered Business Method (CBM) petition.
  • 511 Innovations, Inc. v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. and Vishay Capella Microsystems (Taiwan) Limited et al., case 2-15-cv-01524 (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas) – we represent several related parties in defense of a patent action in which a number of patents directed to measuring optical characteristics of an object (e.g., mobile telephones and sensors for mobile devices) are being asserted. This case is currently still in the pleading stage.
  • EIC Solutions, Inc. v. CP Cases, COOL, Bruce Blackway, case 1:13-cv-03609-WDQ (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland) – asserted an action on behalf of the client for infringement of patents directed to thermoelectric air conditioners and thermoelectrically air conditioned transit cases on behalf of plaintiff. Settled case after defendants agreed to stop the manufacture and sale of the infringing products and pay for past infringement.
  • Coordination and management of international patent enforcement and licensing program for patent portfolio directed to cosmetic products, including thermal storage tips for cosmetic applicators. Several litigations are in progress including:
    • HCT Asia Ltd . v. S.A. JACKEL France, High Court of Paris [Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris], 3rd chamber, 3rd section, Docket no.: 13/00816.
    • HCT v. Yonwoo, multiple patent forums in Korea – plaintiff in patent infringement action before the District Court; patent owner defending Korean patent in an invalidation proceeding before the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal; and patent owner defending Korean patent in a Confirmation of Scope Action before the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal; Appellee before the Korean Patent Court in appeal from the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal upholding the validity of the Korean patent and holding the accused device falls within the scope of the Korean patent in the Confirmation of Scope Action.
  • KKG, LLC v. The Rank Group, PLC d/b/a Reynolds Kitchens and/or Reynolds Group et al., 2-11-cv-00012 (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas) – defending against assertion of a patent directed to liner systems for food service applications – e.g., liners for slow cooker. Successfully obtained a voluntary dismissal for client during the early stages of discovery by showing plaintiff it did not have a case of patent infringement against our client.
  • The PACid Group, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas) – represented seven co-defendants in a joint defense group in a case asserting patents covering encryption software. Successfully negotiated an early settlement, patent license, and covenant not to sue.
  • Ferndale Laboratories, Inc. v. Prugen, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit)) – successfully negotiated a license and settlement of the case involving composition of cream for topical application of medication under term favorable to our client during the initial pleading stage of case.
  • Trans World Technologies, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., et al. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey) – obtained favorable settlement and a monetary award for Trans World Technologies, Inc. in case involving misappropriation of trade secrets, antitrust and patent infringement. Technology involved included physics-based software, mathematical modeling and artificial intelligence.
  • Iridian Technologies v. Iritech, Inc. (High Courts of Justice, Chancery Division, Great Britain); Iridian Technologies, Inc. v. Senex Technologies (Court of Rome, Italy); and Iridian Technologies, Inc. v. Iritech, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware) – These three cases involved worldwide assertion of a pioneering patent in the field of biometric iris authentication in which the client was able to successfully prevent and delay several would-be competitors from entering into this field. Helped mediate a settlement and negotiated favorable license agreements for the client.
  • United States Filter Corporation v. Met-Pro Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware) – successfully defended client in a patent infringement action through discovery and claim construction, thereafter obtaining a favorable settlement and dismissal.
  • Maritrans, Inc. v. Penn Maritime, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida) – successfully asserted several of client’s patents and obtained a successful settlement for client on the eve of trial, thus helping client protect their business interests and extract value from their R&D investment through the procurement and strategic use of the client’s intellectual property.
  • Penn Maritime, Inc. v. Maritrans, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York) – successfully obtained dismissal of a declaratory judgment action against client for lack of personal jurisdiction over the patentee defendant.
  • Lakewood Engineering, Inc. v. Lasko Metal Products, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division); Lakewood Engineering, Inc. v. Lasko Metal Products, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois) – both cases involving fan and motor technologies. Helped negotiate a settlement of case at conclusion of trial.
  • Holmes Group, Inc. v. Lasko Group, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York) – steered case to an early settlement, protecting client’s interests and obtaining a favorable license that allowed the client to continue to do business in the particular market.

Education

  • J.D., Rutgers University School of Law, 1998
  • B.S.M.E., Marine Engineering Systems and Mechanical Engineer, United States Merchant Marine Academy, 1987

Bar Admissions

  • Pennsylvania
  • New Jersey
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Practice Areas