Joshua W. Budwin

Josh Budwin is a founding shareholder whose practice centers on patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, and complex commercial litigation, with extensive experience in International Trade Commission investigations. He has played key roles in multiple nine-figure patent verdicts totaling more than $768 million, including matters involving ParkerVision against Qualcomm, and Versata against SAP. On the defense side, Josh was part of a team that represented T-Mobile in a patent infringement action involving 5G telecommunications technology, where the plaintiff sought approximately $245 million and the jury awarded $2 million related to T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson base stations and found no infringement as to T-Mobile’s use of Nokia base stations. He has handled additional defense work for major carriers including AT&T. He has also obtained ITC exclusion and cease-and-desist orders for TiVo/Rovi against Comcast, represented Ericsson in major wireless disputes against Samsung and Apple, and successfully argued a precedential Federal Circuit appeal. Josh is recognized as an IP Star by Managing IP, listed in Best Lawyers in America for Litigation – Intellectual Property, a Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigator and Global IP Lawyer, an IAM Patent 1000 ranked lawyer, a National Law Journal Plaintiffs’ Trailblazer, as a “Future Star” by Benchmark Litigation and a consistent top performer in Patexia’s ITC rankings. He holds a B.S. cum laude in engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (completed in three years) and a J.D. from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he served as Managing Editor of the Environmental Law & Technology Journal and President of the Student Bar Association. He is admitted in Texas and multiple federal courts, including the Federal Circuit.

Representative Matters

• Daingean v. T-Mobile. Represented T-Mobile in a patent infringement action involving 5G telecommunications technology, where the plaintiff sought approximately $245 million and the jury awarded $2 million related to T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson base stations and found no infringement as to T-Mobile’s use of Nokia base stations.
• ParkerVision v. Qualcomm (No. 22-1755). Representing ParkerVision, we successfully raised three issues on appeal: first, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of non-infringement; second, that the district court erred in preventing ParkerVision’s validity expert from offering impactful testimony; and lastly, that the district court abused its discretion in excluding experts’ testimony as unreliable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit issued a 3-0 precedential opinion in favor of ParkerVision on all three issues. Josh Budwin successfully argued the appeal.
• Prep Solutions Ltd. v. Techono Ltd. et al., Secured a $3.8 million default judgment on behalf of Prep Solutions Ltd. against seven defendants, with the Court finding that the defendants willfully infringed 13 of Prep Solutions’ copyrights. In addition to the monetary award, the Court entered a permanent injunction, ordering the transfer of the defendants’ website assets to Prep Solutions, further protecting the company’s intellectual property rights.
• In the Matter of Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software Components (No. 337-TA-1158). Representing TiVo subsidiary Rovi adverse to Comcast in an International Trade Commission investigation involving numerous patents related to interactive television program guides, DVR technology, and related technologies.
• Certain Digital Video Receivers and Related Hardware and Software Components, Inv. (No. 337-TA-1103). Representing TiVo subsidiaries Rovi and Veveo adverse to Comcast in an International Trade Commission investigation involving numerous patents related to interactive search, interactive television program guides, DVR technology, and related technologies. Following a multi- day hearing, the ALJ issued an Initial Determination finding a violation of Section 337. After further briefing, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding of a violation of Section 337 and also issued a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease & Desist Order against Comcast and its set-top box suppliers. Representation also includes companion cases styled as Rovi Guides, Inc., et al v. Comcast Corporation, et al, Case No. 2:18-cv-00253 (CDCA) and Veveo, Incorporated v. Comcast Corporation et al, Case No. 1:18-cv-10056 (D.Mass.)
• Zenimax Media Inc. and ID Software LLC v. Samsung et al. (NDTX). Represented Zenimax and ID software in a trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement case related to Samsung’s “Gear VR” Virtual Reality headset and related technologies.
• Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof (337-TA-1001) – Successfully represented TiVo subsidiary Rovi adverse to Comcast in an International Trade Commission investigation involving numerous patents related to interactive television program guides, DVR technology, and related technologies. Following a multi-day hearing, the ALJ issued an Initial Determination finding a violation of Section 337. After further briefing, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding of a violation of Section 337 and also issued a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease & Desist Order against Comcast and its set-top box suppliers. This representation also included appearing before the IP Branch of Customs and Border Protection in a Part 177 proceeding related to enforcement of the exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit then issued a precedential decision affirming Rovi’s ITC win (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/ files/opinions-orders/18-1450.Opinion.3-2-2020_1543049.pdf). The Supreme Court denied Comcast’s petition for cert (https://www.supremecourt.gov/ orders/courtorders/062220zor_mjn0.pdf
• Rovi Guides, Inc. et al v. Comcast Corporation et al, No. 1: 16-cv-09278-JPO (SDNY) and Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation, et al, No. 1: 16-cv-09826-JPO (SDNY). Representing Tivo subsidiary Rovi adverse to Comcast in a patent infringement action, and its related declaratory judgment action, involving claims of breach of contract, license, implied license as well as infringement of numerous patents related to interactive television program guides, DVR technology, and related technologies.
• Droplets Inc. v. Sears Holding Corp. and Overstock.com Inc. Successfully represented Droplets in obtaining a substantial jury verdict in a patent infringement lawsuit alleging that Sears and Overstock directly and indirectly infringed three Droplets’ patents which cover technology that allows access to graphic user interfaces over both the Internet and private client/server networks. The case settled following the jury verdict.
• Ericsson v. Samsung. Successfully represented Ericsson in multiple patent infringement disputes against Samsung in both the International Trade Commission and in various district court cases related to LTE, WCDMA, GSM/GPRS/EDGE, and 802.11 wireless technology and FRAND/RAND standard issues.
• Versata Software, Inc. et al. v. SAP AG and SAP America Inc. Successfully represented Versata in obtaining a substantial jury verdict in a patent infringement lawsuit alleging infringement by SAP of Versata patents related to pricing software. That verdict (along with pre- and post-judgment interest) was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert.
• Ericsson Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA): In the Matter of: Certain Wireless Communication Equipment, Articles Therein, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-577) before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Involving numerous patents related to hardware and software for UMTS (i.e. 3G or WCDMA) wireless telecommunication devices, including wireless infrastructure equipment, cellular telephones, and error-control coding used therein.
• Ericsson Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA): (E.D. Texas). Involving numerous patents related to hardware and software for UMTS (i.e. 3G or WCDMA) wireless telecommunication devices including wireless infrastructure equipment and cellular telephones.
• Nortel Networks Inc.: Ciena Corp. v. Nortel Networks, et. al. (E.D. Texas). Represented Nortel in a matter involving multiple patents related to hardware and software for long-haul and metro WDM (wavelength division multiplexed) fiber optic networks and associated network equipment including multiplexers, demultiplexers, service channels, and error-control coding used therein.
• InterDigital v. Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+(CDCA): Representing InterDigital against Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ in a dispute related to OTT streaming and related technology.
• Dolby v. InterDigital (CDCA): Representing InterDigital in a declaratory judgment action brought by Dolby related to color correction and related technology.
• RightQuestion v. Samsung (EDTX): Represented RightQuestion against Samsung in a patent infringement suit related to encryption and authentication technology.

Recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® Litigation – Intellectual Property and Litigation – Patent.