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.
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.
In another 12-month period, Jason obtained findings of infringement, validity and willfulness in each of three separate jury trials, with verdicts totaling more than $800 million. In the most recent one, he secured a $500 million verdict against Apple for damages over a period of 19 months in the first patent jury trial of the COVID-19 pandemic. The jury also found that Apple was willful and must pay an ongoing royalty. During this same period, Jason obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a multi-count antitrust and unfair competition complaint that accused his client and others of participating in a cartel and group boycott.
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 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 “Trials MVPs.”
- 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.
- Secured a $300 million jury verdict for PanOptis in a patent trial against Apple involving 4G LTE technology. The award represented the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty that jurors determined Apple owes PanOptis. Jurors in a previous trial found Apple infringed claims of the five patents at issue, determined all asserted claims were valid, and found Apple’s infringement was willful.
- Obtained more than $300 million in jury awards for USAA in separate patent infringement trials against Wells Fargo. The suits involved mobile remote deposit capture technology. Jurors found willful infringement in each case. USAA was able to take the cases 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).
- Representing PanOptis, persuaded a judge to dismiss with prejudice an antitrust and unfair competition suit filed by Continental Automotive Systems involving licensing practices for patents covering cellular technology.
- 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 Law.com 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
- Selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America (2023)
- Named an “Intellectual Property MVP” by Law360 (2022)
- Named an “IP Star” by Managing Intellectual Property (2015, 2018-2022)
- Recognized among the “Leaders of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys” by Los Angeles Business Journal (2021)
- Selected as “Trials MVP” by Law360 (2018, 2020)
- Recognized as a “Winning Litigator” by The National Law Journal (2018, 2020)
- Named one of California’s “Top 100 Lawyers” (2017) and among the “Top IP Litigators” by the Daily Journal (2015, 2019, 2021-2022)
- 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.
- “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
- Supreme Court of the State of California
- U.S. District Court for the Central and Northern Districts of California
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Federal Circuits