Jaideep (Jay) Venkatesan

Partner

Summary

Jaideep “Jay” Venkatesan specializes in intellectual property litigation, with a particular expertise in patent and trade secret litigation.  Mr. Venkatesan has also litigated a variety of commercial litigation disputes, including employment, commercial contract, consumer class action, and antitrust cases.

Mr. Venkatesan has litigated trade secret cases in state and federal courts across the nation.  He has successfully obtained and opposed temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, and engaged with forensic experts to investigate claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information.  Mr. Venkatesan has also negotiated complex agreements regarding the return and/or destruction of allegedly confidential and trade secret information.

Mr. Venkatesan has litigated patent cases involving a diverse range of technologies including wireless telephony, ecommerce software, automated call distribution, hard disk drives, and semiconductor fabrication.  He has worked with clients and experts in conducting pre-filing analysis and investigations as well as infringement, validity, and claim construction positions.  Mr. Venkatesan has extensive experience in all facets of patent litigation, including infringement, validity, claim construction, enforceability, and damages.

Mr. Venkatesan’s employment litigation expertise includes California wage and hour and sexual harassment litigation.  Mr. Venkatesan also negotiates employment agreements and separation agreements for companies and individual employees and counsels companies on employment issues.

Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Venkatesan represented clients in patent, trade secret, and commercial litigation at two national law firms, and also managed patent litigation in-house for a California e-commerce company.

Member: State Bar of California; American Bar Association; Santa Clara County Bar Association; William P. Ingram Inn of Court, and the Federal Bar Association.

Representative Cases

Intellectual Property Litigation

  • TIBCO Software Inc. v. RapidMiner, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV534404 (CA)
    Represented RapidMiner, Inc. and an individual defendant in lawsuit asserting breach of contract, trade secret, and other tort claims. The case settled after the Firm prevailed on appeal of a denial of RapidMiner’s and other defendants’ petition to compel arbitration.
  • Lumileds LLC v. Elec-Tech International Co., et al., Case No. 15-1-CV-278566, Santa Clara Superior Court
    The Firm prevailed on a motion for a protective order on behalf of a third party witness whose personal documents and materials contained in his Google Gmail account were subpoenaed by the defendants.,
  • Elenza, Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories Holding Corporation, et al,A. No. N14C-03-185 MMJ CCLD (DE)
    Represented plaintiff Elenza in contract, trade secret, and other tort claims against defendants involving medical device technology.
  • NetApp, Inc. v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al,Case No. 5:13-cv-05058 (CA and N.D.CA)
    Represented employees of Nimble Storage, Inc. in a trade secret and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act action filed by NetApp, Inc. The firm’s clients prevailed on motions to dismiss that resulted in the dismissal of several defendants and several claims in state and federal court (41 F. Supp. 3d 816 and 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11406).
  • Life360, Inc. v. Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00151-BLF (N.D.CA)
    Represented Life360 in a false patent marking case. The matter settled after Life360 defeated the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
  • Unisense Fertilitech A/S v. Auxogyn, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-5065(N.D. CA)
    Represented Auxogyn and Stanford University in declaratory relief action filed by Unisense as to noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of Auxogyn’s ‘906 Patent.  The case was dismissed upon the Court’s granting of Auxogyn and Stanford’s motion to dsmiss.
  • Realization Technologies v. Srivistav, et al., Case No. 113CV253554, Santa Clara County Superior Court (trade secrets and contract)


Represented Realization in a misappropriation of trade secrets action that led to Realization obtaining a stipulated preliminary injunction.

  • CICAS v. Med-Surgical Services, Inc., Case No. 10-05067(N.D. CA)
    Represented Med-Surgical in patent infringement lawsuit. The case settled after Med-Surgical obtained an award of sanctions after a discovery motion.
  • Guzik Technical Enterprises v. Western Digital, et al, Case No. 5:11-CV-03786, (N.D. CA)
    Represented GTE in patent infringement lawsuit and counterclaims involving hard disk drive technology.

 

Commercial Litigation

  • Peralta Community College District v. Johnson Controls, Inc. Case No. RG1264402 (CA)
    Represented Peralta Community College District in breach of contract and California False Claims Act case.
  • VisionChina Media Inc. v. Shareholder Representative Services, Inc. Case No. 650526/2011 (NY)
    Represented former shareholders in fraud and breach of contract claims and counterclaims.
  • Perez v. Hewlett Packard Company Case No. 111CV213052 (CA)
    Represented HP in multi-state employment dispute. The case settled after HP obtained a denial of the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
  • Verizon Sourcing LLC v. Quantifind, Inc., C.A. No. N17C-05-243, Superior Court of DelawareRepresented Quantifind in breach of contract action concerning data analytics services.

Publications

Author: “The Defend Trade Secrets Act Two Years Later”, Northern California Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL) Report (Fall 2018).

Author: “A New Federal Action Transforms Trade Secrets Litigation,” New Matter (Vol. 41, No. 4 Winter 2016).

Author: “Software Patents After Alice v. CLS Bank International,” New Matter, Vol. 40, No. 1, Spring 2015.

Author: “Federal Trade Secrets Legislation and California: Resolving the Conflicts Within and Without,” Northern California Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL) Report, Vol. 23, No. 3, Spring 2015 (with Sara Petersen Graves).

Author: “The Supreme Court and Patentable Subject Matter Under Section 101,” Northern California Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL) Report, Vol. 22, No. 2, Summer/Fall 2013.

Author: “Compulsory Licensing After eBay,” Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, Winter 2009.