Jason R. Bartlett

Partner

San Francisco, (415) 268-6615

Download vCard

Education

University of California, Davis (B.A., 1995)
;
University of California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 1998)

Practices

Intellectual Property Litigation

Patent Litigation

Commercial Litigation

Bar Admissions

California

Jason Bartlett has represented international and domestic companies as both plaintiffs and defendants in matters involving biotechnology, medical devices, computer hardware, telecommunications, and heavy industry.

From 2003 through 2006 he was resident in Morrison & Foerster's Tokyo office, where his practice focused on representing Japanese electronics, communications, and industrial companies in intellectual property and antitrust litigation, and international commercial arbitration.

Mr. Bartlett has represented clients in matters venued in U.S. District Courts, the International Trade Commission, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Tokyo District Court, and a variety of international arbitral fora.

While earning his J.D., Mr. Bartlett was editor of the Constitutional Law Journal, and a member of the Thurston Society.

Abbott Labs, et al. v. Roche, Bayer.

(Northern District of California) In August 2005, plaintiff Abbott Labs filed suit in the Northern District of California against Bayer and Roche, two of the leading manufacturers of blood glucose meters and strips, asserting infringement of two of Abbott's patents. After our client Bayer won summary judgment on one of the patents, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who consolidated it for trial with a related set of cases involving Becton-Dickinson and set a trial date within six weeks on the second patent. Roche settled two days before trial. After a six-day bench trial in June 2008, in a 54-page opinion, the court found in Bayer's favor on all claims. The court invalidated every asserted claim as obvious, and also found the patent unenforceable. In January 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment in all respects. The Court then took en banc the issue whether it should rewrite the law of inequitable conduct, which it subsequently did in the recent Therasense decision (which did not affect the ultimate outcome of the case).