Nathan Lowenstein is a founding partner and co-Managing Partner of Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP. He is one of the top IPR litigators representing patent owners in the country. Mr. Lowenstein has represented or is representing the patent owner as de facto lead counsel in over 50 IPR matters, and in those matters, Mr. Lowenstein is yet to have a case in which every claim-at-issue in litigation has been cancelled.
Mr. Lowenstein’s IPR practice builds upon his extensive experience in complex litigation in federal and state courts, international arbitrations, and in appeals, including before the United States Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. Mr. Lowenstein has been lead counsel in multiple patent litigations and is a veteran of multiple high stakes patent litigation trials all involving high stakes patent disputes.
He has represented clients in numerous industries, including the semiconductor, smart phone, networking, medical device, TV broadcasting, video game, telephone headset, and bio-pharmaceutical industries. Mr. Lowenstein has been selected as a “Super Lawyer” in Southern California by Los Angeles Magazine each of the last six years, one of the youngest attorneys to be selected for this honor. Prior to that, the same magazine identified Mr. Lowenstein as a “Rising Star.”
Mr. Lowenstein has a J.D. from UCLA Law School and a B.A., with honors, from UCSC. Mr. Lowenstein has been active in numerous local charities, public interest organizations and bar associations.
Personal Experience In Representative Matters
Google/Samsung v. Seven Networks, LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2018) – Lead* or co-lead counsel for patent owner in eighteen currently pending Inter Partes Review Proceedings.
Intel v. VLSI Technology LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2018) – Lead counsel for patent owner in six pending Inter Partes Review proceedings.
Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2017) – Lead counsel for patent owner in four (of eight) Inter Partes Reviews. All four IPRs were not instituted by the Board.
Alphonso, Inc. v. Free Stream Media Corp. (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2017) – Lead counsel for patent owner in two Inter Partes Reviews concerning networked devices. Both matters were denied institution by the Board.
Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations, Ltd. (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2016/2017) –Counsel for patent owner in seven Inter Partes Reviews concerning memory module technology. In the four matters in which Mr. Lowenstein took the lead, the Board declined to institute two matters in their entirety and declined to institute as to claims at issue in the litigation in a third. In the fourth matter, all claims were upheld by the Board in the Board’s final written decision.
Intel v. Future Link Systems (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2016) – Lead counsel for patent owner in four Inter Partes Reviews concerning semiconductor technology.
IpLearn Focus, LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2014/2015) – Lead counsel for patent owner IpLearn-Focus in three Inter Partes Reviews. One of the three petitions was not instituted and Lowenstein was able to preserve claims-at-issue in litigation in the other two patents following final written decisions by the Board.
Solocron Media, LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2014) – Lead counsel for patent owner in 13 Inter Partes Reviews. The matters settled after the patent owner preliminary responses were filed.
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2013/2014) – Counsel for patent owner Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. in four Covered Business Method Patent Reviews. The PTAB decided not to institute all four matters.
Sightsound Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court 2016) – Represented amicus curiae Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) in support of pending petition for certiorari regarding the availability of judicial review of decisions by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in the Federal Circuit.
Achates Ref. Publ., Inc. v. Apple Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court 2015/2016) – Lead counsel for petitioner, concerning the availability of judicial review of decisions of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in the Federal Circuit. Lowenstein’s petition for certiorari in this matter prompted a settlement of the underlying longstanding dispute.
Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court 2014/2015) – Obtained a grant of certiorari over the objection the United States government and represented Petitioners in case argued before the United States Supreme Court relating to whether the U.S. Supreme Court would overrule Brulotte v. Thys, Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964).
Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2013) – Represented amicus curiae Tessera arguing for vacatur and remand on the basis that the Federal Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear the underlying dispute concerning the burden of proving patent infringement in declaratory judgment actions.
Sunlight Product Technologies, Ltd. v. MpowerD Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2016) – Lead counsel for plaintiff and cross claimant in multi-patent dispute concerning solar powered lanterns.
Kratos Enterprises Holdings, LLC v. Nova Ortho-Med, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2016) – Lead counsel for defendant in patent litigation. The matter was resolved through settlement.
Kee Action Sports, LLC v. Shyang Huei Industrial Co. Ltd., (D. Or.) – Lead counsel for defendants in a 10 patent case involving both patent infringement and breach of contract claims. The matter was resolved through settlement.
Sundesa, LLC v. Nutrakey Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for defendant in patent infringement action. The matter was resolved through settlement.
*References to Mr. Lowenstein being “lead” counsel in PTAB matters refers to cases Mr. Lowenstein has managed.
L&W Featured As One of the Top IPR Defense Firms in the Country
L&W LLP Scores Multiple IPR Wins
L&W Files Fed. Cir. Brief on Behalf of amici BIO & PhRMA on IPR Estoppel
L&W Submits Amicus Curiae Brief to U.S. Supreme Court on Behalf of Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO)
L&W’s Kevin Rosenberg featured in Reuters Report: Venetian/Palazzo Casino Potentially Skirts U.S. Anti-Money Laundering Laws