Jason Bartlett is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. His practice focuses on intellectual property with an emphasis on patent litigation. He has represented international and domestic companies as both plaintiff and defendant in matters involving consumer electronics, telecommunications, medical devices, biotechnology, computer hardware, and heavy industry.
From 2003 through 2006 Mr. Bartlett was a resident in the firm’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 the 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.
Mr. Bartlett joined Morrison & Foerster in 2000. He received his B.A. in economics and political science from the University of California, Davis in 1995, and his J.D., cum laude, from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1998.
Member of team that successfully tried a high-profile smartphone case leading to a jury verdict of over $1 billion.
Confidential ICDR Wireless Telecommunications Arbitration
In 2011, successfully concluded a complex, multi-stage arbitration relating to wireless telecommunications standards on behalf of a large Japanese electronics manufacturer.
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 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, but later issued an en banc decision on the standard for finding inequitable conduct. On remand in 2012, the district court found inequitable conduct again under the new standard.