Nathan Lowenstein


Nathan Lowenstein

(310) 307-4502
1880 Century Park East,
Suite 815
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Nathan Lowenstein is a founding partner and co-Managing Partner of Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP. He has extensive experience in complex litigation in federal and state courts, post grant proceedings under the AIA (including both Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) patent reviews) in international arbitrations, and in appeals, including before the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Lowenstein has been lead counsel in approximately 30 AIA matters and in multiple U.S. Supreme Court matters and is a veteran of multiple trials all involving high stakes patent disputes.  He has represented clients in numerous industries, including the semiconductor, smart phone, 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 four 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.”

In addition to his patent practice, Mr. Lowenstein also specializes in pre-litigation counseling, commercial disputes, trademark and copyright disputes, and election law. 

Mr. Lowenstein previously practiced for many years at Irell & Manella LLP in Los Angeles.  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 including AIPLA, LAIPLA, Bet Tzedek, The Federalist Society, Team Prime Time, the Japanese American Bar Association, the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the Dialogues on Freedom project.

Personal Experience In Representative Matters

Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations, Ltd. (Patent Trial & Appeal Board) – Lead counsel for patent owner in six pending Inter Partes Reviews concerning memory module technology. 

Intel v. Future Link Systems (Patent Trial & Appeal Board) – Lead counsel for patent owner in four pending Inter Partes Reviews concerning semiconductor technology. 

Sightsound Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court) – 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) – 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) – 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).

Sunlight Product Technologies, Ltd. v. MpowerD Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for plaintiff and cross claimant in pending multi-patent dispute concerning solar powered lanterns. 

Kratos Enterprises Holdings, LLC v. Nova Ortho-Med, Inc. (E.D. Mich.) – Lead counsel for defendant in pending patent litigation. 

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. 

Solocron Media, LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board) – Lead counsel for patent owner in 13 Inter Partes Reviews.  The matters settled after the patent owner response was filed.

Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. (U.S. Sup. Ct.) – 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. 

Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (Patent Trial & Appeal Board) – Represented patent owner Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. in four Covered Business Method Patent Reviews.  The PTAB decided not to institute four CBMs. 

Diamond Coating Technologies, LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board) – Represented patent owner Diamond Coating Technologies in three Inter Partes Reviews.

IpLearn Focus, LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board) – 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 the other two patents following final written decisions by the Board. 

Sundesa, LLC v. Nutrakey Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for defendant in patent infringement action.  The matter was resolved through settlement.

Tessera, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Tessera in a case involving semiconductor packaging technology. Tessera received $80 million and significant future royalties in a settlement.

Tessera, Inc. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. (International Court of Arbitration) – Represented Tessera in a series of arbitrations which resulted in a $64 million award (2008) and a separate $145 million award (2014) for Tessera, based on breach of a patent license agreement.

Tessera, Inc. v. United Test and Assembly Center Ltd. (Cal. Sup. Ct.) – Represented Tessera in a breach of contract action. The suit resulted in a settlement entitling Tessera to $15 million and future royalties.

Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented Texas Instruments in a patent infringement case relating to microprocessor architecture. Texas Instruments prevailed on summary judgment.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc. (W.D. Ark.) – Represented St. Jude Medical in a patent infringement case relating to vascular closure devices.  The jury returned a verdict of willful infringement and awarded St. Jude $27.1 million in damages.

Quantum World Corp. v. Atmel Corp. et al., (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Atmel in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas involving patents directed to random number generators.