Josh Lee concentrates his practice on the litigation of complex patent disputes in U.S. district courts across the country, at the International Trade Commission, and in trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Mr. Lee is also a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and has substantial patent prosecution experience.
Mr. Lee has handled matters involving diverse technologies, including telecommunication systems, software, electrical and mechanical systems, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, chemical products, medical products, textile products, retail goods, and financial technologies. Mr. Lee has practiced before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, various U.S. district courts, including in Texas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Florida, Oregon, and Washington, the International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Mr. Lee has regularly handled and coordinated many aspects of patent litigation, including infringement and validity analyses, motion practice, claim construction, discovery, taking and defending depositions, expert discovery, pre-trial proceedings, and trial. Mr. Lee has jury trial experience, including serving as the lead associate in a jury trial in the Western District of Texas in which the jury returned a verdict that his client did not infringe and that the opponent’s patent claims were invalid. Additionally, he regularly assists companies with a variety of other intellectual property matters, including pre-suit matters, such as assessing companies’ patent portfolios and analyzing patents held by competitors, as well as advising companies on patent license agreements.
During law school, Mr. Lee was named National Champion in the 2010 AIPLA Giles Sutherland Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition, which focuses on issues in patent law. Prior to his legal career, Mr. Lee worked as a process engineer in the textile industry.
Mr. Lee was recognized as a Georgia "Rising Star" in the area of Intellectual Property Litigation in 2022 and the eight years prior by Super Lawyers magazine.
Represented GREE, Inc., a Japanese gaming and internet media company in a large-scale patent battle with Supercell, a Finnish mobile game development company. Kilpatrick Townsend launched suits involving more than 20 patents against Supercell. The case led to a complex series of litigations in district court resulting in more than $100 million in jury verdicts in favor of GREE, as well as at the PTAB and before the Federal Circuit. The Kilpatrick Townsend team obtained a jury verdict for GREE in the Eastern District of Texas of willful infringement, asserting five patents and an award of at least $8.5 million for damages against Supercell in September 2020, and a second jury verdict of willful infringement in favor of GREE and an award of at least $92 million in damages in May 2021. GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Nos. 2:19-cv-00237, 2:19-cv-00310, 2:19-cv-00311, 2:19-cv-00070, 2:19-cv-00071 (E.D. Tex.) (Judge Gilstrap).
Prevailed on behalf of Petitioner GREE, Inc. in inter partes review challenging the validity of a patent related to authentication and plug-in technology, which had been asserted by Supercell against GREE, Inc. in a parallel district court proceeding. After Mr. Lee’s oral argument on the matter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of GREE, Inc., cancelling all challenged claims. GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, IPR2019-00086 (P.T.A.B.).
Represented TNA Australia Pty Limited and TNA North America Inc. in offensive patent infringement action against competitor in the Northern District of Texas regarding “gateless” conveyor system technology. After persuasive briefing and argument resulted in a favorable claim construction order, the team leveraged the strength of TNA’s meritorious claims to secure a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendant from selling its infringing products in the United States. TNA Australia Pty Limited v. PPM Technologies, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-0642-M (N.D. Tex.).
Represented Motorola Mobility in defending patent infringement claims related to wireless earpiece technology in the Western District of Texas. After winning summary judgment on certain of the claims and forcing plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of others before trial, presented a defense that led the jury to return a verdict of non-infringement and invalidity against the remaining claims that were at issue. Effingo Wireless, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 5:11-cv-00649 (W.D. Tex.) The asserted patent was also invalidated in a re-examination proceeding prosecuted by the firm.
Defended Sidense Corp. in litigation asserting patent infringement, trade libel and defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, relating to one-transistor, one-time programmable embedded non-volatile memory (eNVM) technology. Defeated patent claims on summary judgment and plaintiff dismissed business tort claims with prejudice. District Court ordered Kilopass to pay Sidense $5.5 million in attorneys' fees and costs. Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., No. 10-2066 (N.D. Cal. filed May 14, 2010).
Represented Respondent ARRIS in patent infringement and importation investigation at ITC brought by Rovi, related to on-screen programing guide technology, with related actions in various U.S. district courts and New York State Court. After a full hearing, the team secured a finding of no infringement by ARRIS in the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination, and that finding was affirmed in the ITC’s Final Determination. In re Digital Video Receivers, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1001.
Represented Respondent ARRIS in a patent infringement and importation investigation brought by OpenTV/Nagra/Kudelski, related to digital content and voice command technology. Case settled. In re Certain Digital Television Set-Top Boxes, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1041.
Represented Comcast in a patent infringement action related to set-top box technology brought by Nagravision SA et al. Case settled. Nagravision SA et al. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Case no. 2:16-cv-1362 (EDTX filed December 5, 2016).
Represented Alfresco Software in a lawsuit involving allegations of patent infringement related to content management systems. The lawsuit involved nine patents from two distinct families of patents, each covering different subject matter. After successfully transferring the case from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Northern District of California, the team invalidated two of the asserted patents at the 12(b)(6) stage under the Supreme Court's Alice standard for patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The remainder of the case was settled shortly thereafter on confidential terms. Open Text SA v. Alfresco Software Ltd., et al., 13-cv-04843 JD (N. D. Cal., filed October 18, 2013).
Represented adidas in patent infringement suit regarding athletic performance measurement technology. After engaging in early fact discovery, we obtained a favorable resolution of this matter for our client prior to claim construction briefing. Leaper Footwear, LLC v. adidas America, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00470 (D. Utah filed May 25, 2011).
Insights View All
University of Tennessee College of Law J.D. (2010) with honors
Clemson University B.S. (2006) Industrial Engineering, magna cum laude
Georgia Court of Appeals (2011)
Georgia Superior Court (2010)
Supreme Court of Georgia (2011)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2013)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (2014)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2011)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2007)
American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), Member
AIPLA Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition, Volunteer
American Bar Association, Member
Atlanta Bar Association, Member
State Bar of Georgia, Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.