Nathan Lowenstein

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 the patent owner as de facto lead counsel in over 70 IPR matters. In the matters in which Lowenstein took the lead, he has obtained 24 noninstitutions, one partial noninstitution, six complete IPR trial wins and four partial trial wins. Two patents successfully defended by Lowenstein on behalf of his client VLSI Technology were the subject of a $2.18B jury verdict, the second largest patent verdict in history and a third was the subject of a $948 million verdict.

Mr. Lowenstein is also an experienced appellate litigator and has been lead counsel in 20 Federal Circuit appeals. Mr. Lowenstein has achieved complete victories in 15 appeals to reach a resolution including 14 victories in 2021 alone (two argued cases and 12 dismissals for want of jurisdiction), and a partial victory in another consolidated appeal in 2022.

Mr. Lowenstein’s IPR and appellate practices 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 was named by National Law Journal as a 2019 IP Trailblazer, one of just 27 attorneys nationwide recognized for the distinction. He was also named to the Daily Journal’s Top IP Lawyers lists for both 2019 and 2020, which identifies the top 75 IP lawyers in the state of California for a given year. Lowenstein was one of the youngest attorneys identified. Lowenstein has also been selected as a “Super Lawyer” in Southern California by Los Angeles Magazine each of the last ten years. 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

Edwards Lifesciences v. Aortic Innovation (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2022) – Obtained a non institution, two complete trial wins and a partial trial win as lead counsel on behalf of Aortic Innovation.

Google/Apple/Samsung v. Neonode Smartphone LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2022) – Co-lead counsel for Neonode. Neonode obtained two complete trial wins.

VLSI Technology LLC (Federal Circuit 2022) – Lead counsel for appellant VLSI in consolidated appeal. Lowenstein obtained a partial reversal and remand.

Netflix/Hulu/Unified Patents v. DivX LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2021) – Counsel for patent owner DivX in five inter partes reviews. DivX achieved complete trial wins in all five IPRs, including the two that Lowenstein co-tried.

Intel v. VLSI Technology LLC (Federal Circuit 2021) – Lead counsel for appellee VLSI in appeal of 12 IPRs. Lowenstein obtained a dismissal of all 12 appeals and overcame Intel’s attempts to seek panel and en banc review of the dismissals. Previously, Lowenstein obtained non-institutions in all 12 IPRs.

Intel v. VLSI Technology LLC (Federal Circuit 2021) – Lead counsel for appellee VLSI in appeal 20-1711. The Federal Circuit affirmed VLSI’s complete IPR victory before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board affirming all claims in VLSI’s ‘672 patent. Lowenstein was also lead counsel for VLSI in the IPR trial (IPR2018-01107) that was the subject of the appeal.

Intel v. VLSI Technology LLC (Federal Circuit 2021) – Lead counsel for appellee VLSI in appeal 20-1712. The Federal Circuit affirmed VLSI’s complete IPR victory before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board affirming all claims in VLSI’s ‘207 patent. Lowenstein was also lead counsel for VLSI in the IPR trial (IPR2018-01040) that was the subject of the appeal.

Intel v. VLSI Technology LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2020) – Lead drafter of argument that resulted in the non-institution of twelve (of twelve) IPRs concerning a total of six VLSI patents. Two of the patents were the subject of a $2.18B jury verdict, the second largest patent verdict in history.

Intel v. VLSI Technology LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2018) – Lead counsel for patent owner in six IPRs.  One was denied institution and patent owner prevailed at trial in four of the five other IPRs.

Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations, Ltd. (Federal Circuit 2019) – Lead counsel for appellee Polaris in appeal.  The Federal Circuit affirmed Polaris’ complete IPR victory before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board affirming all claims in Polaris’ challenged patent.  Lowenstein was also lead counsel for Polaris in the IPR trial that was the subject of the appeal.

Apple v. IXI, IP, LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2019) – counsel for patent owner in six Inter Partes Review proceedings. The Board denied institution in all six proceedings.

Google/Samsung v. Seven Networks, LLC (Patent Trial & Appeal Board 2018) – Lead* or co-lead counsel for patent owner in eighteen Inter Partes Review Proceedings. The cases have since settled.

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 acted as de facto lead counsel.