Described in Chambers USA as having “a remarkable ability to come up with creative solutions,” Jason Sheasby focuses on complex litigation, patents, trade secrets, antitrust, regulatory compliance and internal investigations. His experience spans a wide range of industries, including bio/pharmaceuticals, medical devices, semiconductors, telecommunications, electronics, higher education and healthcare.

Jason is repeatedly named in industry awards including the Daily Journal’s “Top 100 Lawyers” and “Top IP Litigators,” The National Law Journal’s “Winning Litigators” list, and Law360’s “Trial MVPs.”

As an example of the wide diversity of his practice, in a single year, Jason was hired by a client post-trial to successfully reverse the largest patent verdict in history ($2.5 billion in a medicinal chemistry matter) and also obtained a $400 million jury verdict against the largest semiconductor manufacturer in the world.

While at Harvard Law School, Jason was a research assistant for Professor Arthur Miller and helped to revise Federal Practice & Procedure, the leading treatise on civil procedure.

Jason is a frequent lecturer on intellectual property, including for the World Intellectual Property Organization and the National Association of College and University Attorneys.


Representative Matters

  • Retained by Gilead Sciences to prepare the post-judgment briefing after its competitor Merck/Idenix was awarded the largest patent verdict in history ($2.5 billion) for infringement of a single patent. In post-trial briefing the court found the patent invalid for lack of enablement, overturning the verdict in its entirety. This was the first time that the presiding judge had ever reversed a major patent verdict after a jury trial.
  • Obtained a $200 million jury verdict for USAA in a patent infringement trial against Wells Fargo. The suit involved mobile remote deposit capture technology. USAA was able to take the case to the jury after the Irell team blocked initiation of seven covered business method (CBM) and inter partes review (IPR) petitions in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • Obtained a $400 million jury verdict for KAIST in a patent infringement trial against Samsung, GlobalFoundries and Qualcomm. The suit involved a fundamental patent relating to bulk FinFET technology. The jury also found that Samsung’s infringement was willful. All claims were found infringed by all parties, and all claims were held valid. The verdict garnered heavy media attention from outlets including and Law360.
  • Achieved a perfect 29-0 record in the PTAB on behalf of an owner of a set of fundamental patents in the USB charging sector.
  • Obtained a defense verdict for Gilead Sciences in a contract litigation over whether Gilead owed a bonus payment under a merger agreement related to Gilead's cancer-fighting PI3K inhibitor Zydelig. Following a trial, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a complete defense verdict, rejecting the plaintiff's claim for damages. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the verdict. The verdict garnered heavy attention from the business media because of the novel strategy employed before the Chancellor.
  • Obtained a judgment that multiple patents were valid and infringed, and received a damages award exceeding $145 million after defeating an IPR challenge. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
  • Served as lead counsel on a complex multidistrict litigation involving dozens of patents and hundreds of counterclaims. The defendants in the suit were the largest cable companies in the U.S. The suit led to Cisco, the dominant supplier in the industry, making the largest payment in Cisco’s history—over $180 million—to his client to settle the suit.
  • Obtained a judgment that a licensee who had already paid in excess of $80 million in royalties had materially and intentionally breached the license by manipulating technical data, allowing his client to terminate the agreement and expose the licensee to patent infringement liability.
  • As counsel for the patentee, the case settled three days before trial, right after the judge affirmed the right of the patentee to seek in excess of $700 million in damages.

Representative Intellectual Property Litigations

Litigates patents involving as wide an array of technologies as possible, including medicinal chemistry, genomics, polymer chemistry, antibody humanization, recombinant drug expression, fusion proteins, optics, computer microarchitecture, materials science, and semiconductor packaging.

Representative Internal Investigations and Regulatory Compliance Matters

Conducted internal investigations relating to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulatory compliance, including improper use of research funding and pricing and anti-kickback investigations, as well as improper use of competitor trade secrets. 

Post-Grant Review Proceedings

Routinely retained for complex USPTO post-grant review proceedings that involve large numbers of experts and complex administrative law questions. He has prevailed on IPR challenges to patents in a wide variety of industries, including medicinal chemistry, semiconductor packaging technology, computer microarchitecture, telecommunications and computer security. Prevailing on these patents blocked generic entry into a drug market, and protected royalty payments in excess of $700 million.

Honors & Awards

  • Named an “IP Star” by Managing Intellectual Property (2015, 2018-2020)
  • Selected as “Trials MVP” by Law360 (2018)
  • Recognized as a “Winning Litigator” by The National Law Journal (2018)
  • Named one of California’s “Top 100 Lawyers” (2017) and among the “Top IP Litigators” by the Daily Journal (2015 & 2019)
  • Ranked in Intellectual Property (Patent) in Chambers USA (2016-2019)
  • Named a “Rising Star” by Law360 (2013)
  • Consistently recognized as a leading intellectual property litigator in publications such as Benchmark Litigation, The Legal 500, Southern California Super Lawyers and IAM Patent 1000.

Speaking Engagements

  •  "End Game: The Oral Hearing, Final Written Decision, Rehearing and Appeals to the CAFC," PLI’s USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2016 (March 31, 2016)
  • "Tips for Presenting a Technical Expert in Federal Court," LAIPLA's Fall Patent Litigation Dinner (October 20, 2015)
  • "Commercialization Strategies: Current Trends and Recent Deals," 2nd Biotechnology Transfer & Commercialization Conference (September 9-10, 2015)


Harvard Law School (J.D., 1999), cum laude

Pomona College (B.A., Philosophy, 1996), summa cum laude; Phi Beta Kappa


  • California
  • U.S. District Court for the Central and Northern Districts of California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jump to Page