RONALD J. PABIS, Partner

Ronald J. Pabis is a partner in the firm’s Patent Litigation and Counseling Practice. For more than 20 years, he has been a trusted advisor to in-house counsel and corporate management. An experienced trial lawyer, he represents technology companies in patent litigation and patent licensing disputes at all stages of the litigation process. He leads teams in pre-suit disputes and negotiations, Markman and summary judgment hearings, and at trial.

Mr. Pabis has wide-ranging experience in an array of industries and sectors. He has litigated cases in the networking, semiconductor, semiconductor packaging, software, and medical device fields.

Mr. Pabis’ significant jury trial experience includes federal district courts throughout the country. In addition to his district court practice, he has handled and tried a number of Section 337 investigation hearings before the US RONALD J. PABIS International Trade Commission. He has also tried a number of matters before Partner arbitration panels including panels before the International Chamber of WASHINGTON, DC Commerce and has appeared before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter Office: 202 639-6868 Email: [email protected] partes review proceedings PRACTICE GROUPS Mr. Pabis’ representative experience prior to joining the firm includes the Intellectual Property following: ITC Section 337 Japan Practice International Trade Commission Litigation Patent Litigation and Counseling Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1002: Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants Counsel in Section 337investigation related to alloy and steel products from Trademark, Advertising and Unfair . Competition Practice INDUSTRY GROUPS Certain Height-Adjustable Desk Platforms and Components Thereof, ITC Life Sciences Inv. No. 337-TA-992: Counsel in Section 337 investigation related to height- EDUCATION adjustable desk platforms. Albany Law School of Union University, JD, 1994; cum laude Certain Digital Televisions Containing Integrated Circuit Devices, 337-TA- Hobart and William Smith Colleges, BS, 806. Counsel for Renesas and 511 Technologies, Inc. in ITC investigation 1988 seeking exclusion of Vizio's digital televisions. ADMISSIONS Certain Digital Televisions, 337-TA-789. Counsel for District of Columbia Corporation and Renesas Electronics America, Inc. in ITC investigation Florida regarding QAM demodulation. COURT ADMISSIONS US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit Certain Digital Cameras, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-671. Trial counsel for US District Court, Eastern District of Texas , Ltd. In patent-based section 337 investigation regarding patents related to digital camera technology against Eastman US District Court, District of Columbia Kodak, Inc. US District Court, Southern District of Florida Certain Voltage Regulators, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-564. Trial counsel for US District Court, Middle District of Florida complainant Linear Technology in 337 investigation regarding analog circuitry. Commission issued exclusion order after finding violation. Additionally, acted as trial counsel in enforcement proceeding to enforce the limited exclusion order.

©Copyright 2021 Jenner & Block LLP. Jenner & Block is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. Certain Systems for Detecting and Removing Viruses or Worms, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-510. Counsel in enforcement proceeding for complainant Trend Micro. Settled in enforcement phase after finding of violation and grant of partial summary judgment of violation of cease and desist order.

AATI v. U.S.I.T.C.Acted as counsel for intervener Linear Technology in appeal to Federal Circuit.

District Court

EcoServices LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC. Lead trial counsel for EcoServices in patent infringement trial in the Central District of California related to jet engine washing systems. Secured jury verdict in favor of EcoServices on all asserted claims.

Dynavair LLC v. Linear Technology, Inc. Counsel for Linear in patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas related to battery cell balancing technology. Secured dismissal with prejudice.

Prisua Engineering Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Trial counsel for Samsung in patent infringement case in the Southern District of Florida relating to video substitution.

Signal IP v. Kia Motors America, Inc.Counsel for Kia Motors in a five patent case in the Central District of California relating to alleged infringement of patents relating to hybrid vehicles, occupant classification and blind spot detection systems. Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Kia.

Voxathon v. Hyundai Motors, America, Inc. Counsel for Hyundai in patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas relating to automotive entertainment systems. Court granted motion to dismiss on Section 101 grounds.

Raytheon Corporation v. Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. Counsel for Samsung in patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas relating to the process for manufacturing microelectronic devices. Case dismissed after successful IPR.

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Counsel for Samsung in case in Eastern District of Texas relating to communication systems. Case stayed pending IPR.

Tessera, Inc. v. Amkor Technology, Inc.Counsel for Amkor technology in case in dispute relating to semiconductor packaging technology.

Tessera, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics Corporation. Counsel for Renesas Electronics Corporation in a patent infringement action in District of Delaware regarding semiconductor packaging. Settled before trial.

Invensas Corporation v. Renesas Electronics Corporation. Counsel for Renesas Electronics Corporation in a patent infringement action in District of Delaware regarding semiconductor packaging. Settled before trial.

Linear Technology v. Monolithic Power Systems. Trial counsel for plaintiff Linear Technology in jury trial in Delaware relating to analog circuitry, which ended with a jury verdict of infringement in favor of Linear.

Fenner Investments v. , Inc. Counsel for Dell in patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas involving routers, IP packets bridges and related technologies, which was settled before trial.

Hitachi Global Storage Technologies v. G.S. Magic. Counsel for HGST in patent infringement action in the Northern District of California. Settled before trial.

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Michelson. Trial counsel in three-month patent jury trial regarding spinal implant technology in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

Research Corporation Technologies v. Lexmark Int'l. Counsel for Research Corporation Technologies in six-patent case regarding printer software technology. Case was settled following summary judgment and Markman rulings.

2 Arbitrated dispute between medical device manufacturers in a nine-day hearing regarding the parties’ rights under a patent license agreement relating to coronary stents. Received arbitration award favorable to the client after hearing.

Counsel for manufacturer HGST in nine patent case regarding storage technology in Eastern District of Texas.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., IPR2013-00242. Counsel for Amkor technology in case relating to semiconductor packaging technology.

Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Signal IP, Case IPR2016-00115 and joinder case IPR2015-01004. Counsel for Kia Motors in inter partes review proceeding relating to hybrid vehicles, occupant classification and blind spot detection systems.

Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. v. Raytheon Company, Case IPR2016-00739 and IPR2016-00962. Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. in inter partes review proceeding relating to the process of manufacturing a microelectronic device using a removable support substrate and etch-stop.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC,Cases IPR2015-01724, IPR2015- 01725, IPR2015-01726, and IPR2015-01727. Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in inter partes review proceeding relating to a nationwide communication system. Case settled after institution.

SK Hynix Inc., SK Hynix America Inc., SK Hynix memory solutions Inc., and Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc. v. DSS Technology Management, Case IPR2016-00192. Counsel for SK Hynix Inc., SK Hynix America Inc., SK Hynix memory solutions Inc., and Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc. in inter partes review proceeding relating to semiconductor structure having reduced lateral plug erosion.

Publications

Client Alert: A Framework for Analyzing Articles that Infringe Under Section 337, September 2, 2021

Trade Secret Update: Key Developments and Issues to Watch in Trade Secret Law | Spring 2021 Update, March 24, 2021

Speaking Engagements

Panelist, “Life Science-Related Investigations at the US International Trade Commission,” Jenner & Block Webinar, August 12, 2021

“Litigating Trade Secret Claims at the International Trade Commission: The Advantages, Disadvantages, and Special Requirements of Trade Secret-Based Section 337 Investigations,” Webinar, April 27, 2021

3