Stuart W.Yothers

Of Counsel

(T) + 1.212.326.3893

Connect:

Share

Stuart Yothers has more than 15 years of experience advising innovative companies around the world in high-stakes intellectual property matters. He was trial counsel in the first trial of its kind on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms for standards-essential patents. Stuart has advocated for clients in more than 30 complex lawsuits, arguing claim construction, summary judgment, and other matters before the courts. He has significant experience advising overseas clients facing patent-related disputes in the U.S.

Stuart's practice focuses on patent litigation before the courts and the PTAB. Clients in diverse industries, including wireless communications, semiconductors, medical devices, pharmaceuticals (ANDA), and optics, have relied on him to represent them in complex patent matters. Prior to joining Jones Day in 2016, Stuart led the defense of a major Japanese electronics company in a multipatent case brought by Intellectual Ventures. And, he has advised multiple clients in the negotiation of complex license agreements regarding standards-essential patents. In addition, Stuart has significant experience developing patent portfolios, including strategic counseling and patent procurement, for medical device and electronics companies.

Stuart serves on IPO's Post-Grant Patent Office Practice Committee and NYIPLA's Amicus Brief Committee. He also maintains an active pro bono practice, which includes successfully arguing summary judgment in a federal employment discrimination case, amicus filings on behalf of civil rights organizations, and working with asylum seekers.

Experience

  • Elo Touch Solutions resolves multi-patent, multi-venue dispute with 3M regarding touch screen technologyJones Day represented Elo Touch Solutions, Inc. in a four-patent dispute with 3M regarding touch screen technology.
  • NEC Display Solutions defends against attempt to bar importation of LED displaysJones Day is defending NEC Display Solutions (both the Japanese parent and a U.S. subsidiary) against allegations brought by Ultravision Technologies, LLC (“Ultravision”) that certain of NEC Display Solutions' modular LED display panels and related components infringe two patents allegedly owned by Ultravision.
  • Major Japanese electronics manufacturer defends patent infringement claims involving mobile handsetsJones Day is defending a Japanese electronics manufacturer against allegations by Koninklijke KPN N.V. that certain mobile handsets infringe KPN's U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662, entitled Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data with Transmission Error Checking.
  • Bio-Rad enforces patent directed to fluorescence detection apparatuses against Thermo Fisher ScientificJones Day represented Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., a major life sciences and clinical diagnostics manufacturer, in successfully resolving parallel U.S. and European patent infringement actions, and related inter partes reviews in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, against Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., in enforcing Bio-Rad's patents relating to fluorescence detection apparatuses useful in polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
  • Bio-Rad enforces patent directed to temperature control reaction modules against Thermo Fisher ScientificJones Day represented Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., a major life sciences and clinical diagnostics manufacturer, in successfully resolving a U.S. patent infringement action against Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., in enforcing Bio-Rad's patent relating to temperature control reaction modules useful in polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
  • Major Japanese electronics manufacturer defends patent infringement claims involving softwareJones Day is defending a Japanese electronics manufacturer against allegations by Uniloc USA, Inc. that certain software infringes Uniloc's U.S. Patent No. 8,571,194, entitled System and Method for Initiating a Conference Call.

    • The following represents experience acquired prior to joining Jones Day.

    Represented a leading telecommunications company in connection with the negotiation of FRAND licenses for 4G/LTE standard essential patents.

    Defended a Japanese electronics company in a multipatent infringement action involving technology on telecommunications network security.

    Advised a Japanese technology company in connection with intellectual property rights issues related to early stage formation of standard setting organizations.

    Defended a Japanese electronics company in a multipatent infringement action brought by Intellectual Ventures.

    Represented Motorola in a multiple patent dispute against Microsoft.

    Represented a Korean electronics company against Wi-LAN, a nonpracticing entity, in a patent dispute involving IEEE 802.11 "WiFi" technology and CDMA2000 technology (case settled).

    Represented Entegris in a multipatent dispute against its chief competitor related to a mechanism for the quick connection of filters employed in clean room fabrication plants (case settled).

    Lead counsel in a disability-related employment discrimination action against the U.S. State Department's Foreign Service (case settled).

    Represented a medical device company before the Federal Circuit regarding the appeal of an interference proceeding related to pulse oximeter technology.

    Represented Cancer Research Technology and Schering Corporation against Barr Laboratories. After a seven-day ANDA trial involving the patent covering TEMODAR®, which is the leading chemotherapy drug used in the treatment of glioma (a type of brain cancer), the district court prevented Barr from entering the market pending appeal. The Federal Circuit confirmed the enforceability of the patent-in-suit on appeal.

    Represented a medical device company in pursuing patent protection for minimally invasive cardiac bypass devices and procedures.

    Represented a manufacturer in pursuing patent protection for components of induction motors and methods for manufacturing those components.

    View All

    June 2017 Blogs

    Are Inter-Partes-Review Proceedings Constitutional? Supreme Court Will Weigh In, PTAB Litigation Blog

    May 2017 Blogs

    Are Inter Partes Review Proceedings Constitutional? The Federal Circuit Is Not Yet Ready To Decide, PTAB Litigation Blog
    We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.

    Before sending, please note:

    Information on www.jonesday.com is for general use and is not legal advice. The mailing of this email is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Anything that you send to anyone at our Firm will not be confidential or privileged unless we have agreed to represent you. If you send this email, you confirm that you have read and understand this notice.