James F. Valentine
Jim represents corporate clients and universities in intellectual property litigation.
Jim Valentine has practiced before the federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission, the California Superior Courts, and the California Courts of Appeal.
Jim has extensive patent litigation experience with an array of technologies, including magnetic resonance imaging, microprocessors, semiconductor memories and fabrication processes, chipsets, relational database software, data storage, and wireless communications. He built his technical foundation in electrical engineering and computer science over four years at Hughes Aircraft Company's Space and Communications Group before attending law school.
Jim has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America in both intellectual property litigation and patent litigation, acknowledged by Managing IP, and has been listed as a "Northern California Super Lawyer" for several consecutive years.
Education & Credentials
Education
- Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, J.D., Order of the Coif
- The Ohio State University, B.S., Electrical Engineering, Tau Beta Pi
Bar and Court Admissions
-
California
-
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Related Employment
- Howrey, Palo Alto, CA, Partner
Professional Recognition
Listed in The Best Lawyers in America: Litigation - Intellectual Property; Litigation - Patent, 2018-2025
Recognized as an IP Star by Managing IP, 2013, 2014, 2016-2024
Listed in Super Lawyers Magazine as a "Northern California Super Lawyer," 2006-2007, 2010-2024
Impact
Professional Leadership
- American Bar Association, Member
- American Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
- California Bar Association, Member
- Los Angeles County Bar Association, Member
- Peninsula Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
- San Francisco County Bar Association, Member
News
Professional Experience
Patent Litigation
ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. FANUC Ltd., et al.*
Represented defendants in a patent infringement action involving motion control systems and software.
Stormedia LLC v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (HGST), et al.*
Represented Hitachi Global Storage Technologies in a multidefendant patent litigation involving disc drives and helped negotiate early settlement after initial invalidity contentions.
Intel Corporation v. Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd.*
Represented Intel in a patent infringement action relating to semiconductor manufacturing technology. Settled favorably.
Business Objects, S.A. v. MicroStrategy Inc.*
Defended MicroStrategy against charges of infringement of a relational database patent. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement. Business Objects, S.A. v. MicroStrateg Inc., 381 F. Supp.2d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2005). Obtained Rule 36 summary affirmance on appeal (CAFC Appeal No. 05-1540, Sept. 13, 2006).
Sanyo Energy (USA) Corp. v. BYD Company Limited & BYD America Corp.*
Defended BYD in a patent infringement action over lithium ion battery technology. The matter was settled favorably on eve of trial after favorable rulings on pretrial motions.
Business Objects, S.A. v. MicroStrategy Inc.*
Obtained a favorable claim construction ruling which led to summary judgment of noninfringement. Business Objects, S.A. v. MicroStrategy Inc., 280 F. Supp.2d 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2003); see also Business Objects, S.A. v. MicroStrategy Inc., 393 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the Matter of Certain Data Storage Systems and Components Thereof*
Represented complainant EMC Corporation in an International Trade Commission investigation concerning patents over data storage system technology. The matter was settled favorably.
Intel Corporation v. VIA Technologies Inc.*
Represented Intel in multiple patent infringement actions alleging infringement of semiconductor chipset patents. The matter was settled favorably. (N.D. Cal. 2001).
Gripple Limited v. Quiedan Company Inc.*
Represented Gripple Ltd. in an action alleging infringement of a patent on a wine trellising device. The matter was settled shortly after Gripple obtained a preliminary injunction.
Intel Corporation v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.*
Represented Intel in a patent infringement action relating to flash EEPROM technology. The matter was settled favorably. (N.D. Cal. 1998-99).
John Kucharczyk v. The Regents of the University of California*
Defended the University of California against a challenge to its multibillion-dollar research and patent licensing program. The action involved patents relating to imaging contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Obtained summary judgment in an opinion establishing a more deferential review of the university’s licensing decisions. Kucharczyk v. The Regents of the University of California, 946 F. Supp. 1419 (N.D. Cal. 1996); see also Kucharczyk v. The Regents of the University of California, 48 F. Supp.2d 964 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
Jerome R. Singer v. The Regents of the University of California*
Second-chaired court and jury trials for the University of California in a licensing dispute involving MRI patents. Singer v. The Regents of the University of California, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1035 (S.F. Sup. Ct. 1996). This was the first case to implement a more deferential review of university licensing decisions. Singer v. The Regents of the University of California, 1996 WL 775106 (Cal. App. Super. 1996).
Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks Inc.; Seven Networks Inc. v. Visto Corp.; Visto Corp. v. Smartner Information Systems, Ltd.; Seven Networks International OY v. Visto Corp.*
Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2005-2007); Seven Networks Inc. v. Visto Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2005-2007); Visto Corp. v. Smartner Information Systems, Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2005-2007); Seven Networks International OY v. Visto Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2007).Defended Seven and Smartner against charges of infringement of email patents. Settled after an injunction stayed a pending appeal and reexaminations of patents were granted.
* Prior Experience