Aaron Jacobs joined the firm in 2001 and is a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group.

Experience

Mr. Jacobs has a technology litigation practice, with a focus on patent, trade secret, and unfair competition litigation in a range of industries. He also has a general litigation practice involving both commercial and civil matters in several fields. Mr. Jacobs has practiced before federal district courts in a half-dozen states, as well as several federal appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court. He has also practiced before many of the California superior and appellate courts.

From March through May of 2006, Mr. Jacobs served a three-month appointment as a Deputy District Attorney for the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office. During his time as a prosecutor, Mr. Jacobs tried five jury trials and two commissioner trials to verdict.

Prior to joining Heller Ehrman, Mr. Jacobs was a Judicial Extern for The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, United States District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego, CA). He also worked as an intern for both Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Representative Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut.

Representative Engagements

Patent:

• GlobespanVirata, Inc. v. Texas Instruments, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV 03-2854 (GEB) (D.N.J.).  The firm represented patent holders Texas Instruments (TI) and Stanford University in this action involving asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) technology.  After a five-week trial, the jury found in TI and Stanford’s favor, holding all patents valid and all asserted claims infringed.  The jury awarded TI and Stanford $112,000,000 in damages.
• Safeclick, LLC v. Visa International Service Association et al., Case No. C03-05865 SBA ADR (N.D. Ca.).  The firm represents defendants Visa International and Visa U.S.A. in this patent action involving secure online-payment systems.  The district court granted Visa’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
• Litex, Inc. v. Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, Case No. 01 CV 10910 (JLT) (D. Mass.). The firm represented defendant Delphi in this patent action involving patents related to methods and apparatus for reducing pollutants from an engine exhaust gas stream.  The matter was settled in arbitration.
• ISCO International, Inc.  v. Conductus, Inc. et al., Case No. 01-487 (GMS) (D. Del.) The firm represented defendant and counter-plaintiff Superconductor Technologies (STI) in this patent action involving high-temperature superconductive receiver front ends used in cellular telephone systems. After a 13 day trial, the jury found in STI’s favor, holding the patent invalid and not infringed.  The jury awarded STI more than $3,000,000 in damages on its unfair-competition counterclaim.

Trade Secret:

• Starpay.com LLC v. Visa International Service Association et al., Case No. 3:03-CV-0976-L (N.D. Tex.). The firm represents defendants Visa International and Visa U.S.A. in this trade secret and patent action involving secure online-payment systems.
• Visa U.S.A. Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., Case No. CV 815357 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). The firm represents Visa U.S.A. in this trade-secret action involving secure online-payment systems.
• DiMassa v. Stertzer, Case No. CV 222363 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). The firm represented plaintiff Dr. DiMassa in this trade-secret litigation involving the design of coronary stents.  The case was settled in arbitration.
• E2Open LLC v. SEEC, Inc., Case No. C03 1500 MJJ (N.D. Cal.).  The firm represented defendant SEEC in this trade secret litigation involving business-to-business software. 
• Calco Ins. Brokers & Agents, Inc. v. Shiu-Wong et al., Case No. CIV 438646 (Cal. Sup. Ct.).  The firm represented the defendants in this trade-secret litigation involving the departure of the plaintiff’s former employees.  A judge ruled in defendants’ favor on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the parties settled shortly thereafter.

General Litigation:

• Oneto v. Foster Dairy Farms et al., Case No. CIV. S-02-0676 GEB GGH (E.D. Cal.).  The firm represented defendants Foster Dairy Farms and Foster Poultry Farms in this Section 1983 (civil rights) action.  The judge dismissed the case against the Foster Farms defendants upon defendants’ motion.
• Oracle Corp. v. Delphi Corp., Case No. CIV 425814  (Cal. Sup. Ct.). The firm represented defendant Delphi in this contract dispute involving Oracle’s enterprise software.

Appellate Litigation:

• Gonzales et al. v. Oregon et al., 546 U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 904 (Jan. 17, 2006).  The firm represented the terminally ill patients (Patient Plaintiffs) who successfully challenged the Federal Government’s effort to negate Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.  On behalf of the Patient Plaintiffs, the firm – working with the State of Oregon and a group of medical practitioners – sought and successfully obtain a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and summary judgment from the district court.  The firm then successfully defended the judgment on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  Finally, the firm successfully represented the Patient Plaintiffs before the United States Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the favorable decisions by the lower courts, and the majority’s analysis largely followed that set forth in the Patient Plaintiffs’ brief.  For a copy of the opinion, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-623.ZS.html.