James R. Klaiber

James R. Klaiber is counsel in the firm's Intellectual Property & Technology practice group. He focuses on all aspects of patent law, including litigation, transactions and client counseling, and offers particular education and experience in electrical and mechanical technologies. 

Prior to joining Hughes Hubbard, Jim was a Research Engineer at Bell Labs, where he was responsible for the evaluation and design of high-energy density battery subsystems for underwater fiber-optic cable amplifiers. As an attorney, he has handled licensing and litigation efforts involving rechargeable batteries for automotive applications and power-saving circuitry for semiconductor chips.

Jim represents a wide range of clients, from startups to multinationals. He has played a leading role in many large patent litigation cases and has litigated patent cases before the U.S. District Courts, the International Trade Commission and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His cases have involved:

• wireless and optical fiber telecommunications
• electronic securities exchanges and financial transaction software
• semiconductor design and manufacture
• medical electrodes and prosthetic devices
• plasma screen and cathode ray tube displays

• Stanacard v. Rubard: Representing the plaintiff patentee against a competitor accused of copying a calling-card software code
• Pi-Net v. Citizens Financial Group: Representing the defendant bank against a non-practicing entity asserting patents alleged to cover all forms of online electronic banking transactions
• TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods: Represented the plaintiff in winning a reversal of patent venue judgment; successfully convinced the Supreme Court to overturn decades of circuit precedent interpreting the patent venture statute
• Bosch v. Costco: Represented the defendant in winning summary judgment, dismissing claims that Costco's sale of "hybrid" wiper products allegedly infringed four Bosch patents; also won six parallel IPR proceedings, holding asserted claims invalid
• Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc.: Represented the defendant in defeating a petition seeking review of judgment awarding Smith & Nephew more than $85 million in damages for infringement of a patent disclosing a resilient suture anchor apparatus and methods for performing orthopedic surgery
• Lohmann & Rauscher GmbH & Co. Kg v. Crawford Healthcare Inc.: Represented plaintiff in winning a final judgment and permanent injunction restraining Crawford Healthcare from importing, selling or using any wound-cleaning products that embody the inventions defined in plaintiff's "Wound Cleaning Assembly" patent
• SEC v. Matthew T. Mellon II et al.: Represented the defendant, a billionaire cryptocurrency investor and banking heir, in the SEC's investigation of shareholder fraud by the board of Medient Studios Inc., and in successfully settling an SEC administrative proceeding, unrelated to the fraud, charging Mellon with violating securities laws by failing to timely report his receipt of Medient stock
• Free-Flow Packaging International Inc. v. Automated Packaging Systems Inc.: Represented defendant in securing a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims for alleged patent infringement
• BASF Corp.v. SNF Holding Co.: Represented the defendant and co-defendants in the Federal Circuit's ruling that the case had been filed in an improper venue and finding that a BASF patent was invalid and dismissed, in its entirety, a civil action for alleged patent infringement that the plaintiff brought against SNF and several affiliates
• Google v. Oracle: Filed a brief for IBM and Red Hat in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
• Cheetah Omni v. Fujitsu Network Communications: Represented the defendant telecommunications equipment manufacturer sued by a non-practicing entity patent holder
• Advanced Technology Incubator v. Sharp et al.: Represented the defendant and LCD display manufacturer Dai Nippon Printing in a multi-defendant case brought by a non-practicing entity 
• Renesas v. Samsung: Represented the semiconductor manufacturer patentee in US District Court and parallel International Trade Centre proceedings against a competitor
• Papyrus Technologies v. New York Stock Exchange: Represented the leading financial exchange against a non-practicing entity; summary judgment on invalidity for obviousness affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Southwestern Bell et al. v. Arthur A. Collins Inc.: Represented the declaratory judgment plaintiff Fujitsu Network Communications; summary judgment of invalidity affirmed by the Federal Circuit