Max Olson

Partner | Tokyo
|
81 3 3214 6522

Experience

(Western District of Texas Case No. 6:20 cv 00559 ADA). Represented JOLED in the enforcement of its OLED display patents against Samsung’s Galaxy phones.

(ITC Inv. No. 337 TA 1257). Represented respondents JOLED Inc., ASUSTeK Computer Inc., and ASUS Computer International in ITC Section 337 investigation involving OLED displays.

(Western District of Texas Case No. 6:21 cv 00017 ADA). Represented JOLED and its customer ASUSTeK Computer Inc. in patent infringement action involving OLED display technology.

(Western District of Texas Case No. 6:21 cv 00053 ADA). Represented JOLED and its customer ASUSTeK Computer Inc. in patent infringement action involving OLED display technology.

(Central District of California Case No. 2:21 cv 04969 GW). Represented defendants DENSO TEN Limited and DENSO TEN America Limited in patent infringement action involving semiconductor technology.

(Northern District of California Case No. 5:20-cv-00193-LHK and Japan Commercial Arbitration Association Case No. 20-06). Represented Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. (“FSL”) in a global dispute over the intellectual property rights in and ownership of thousands of photomasks used in the manufacture of semiconductors. Defeated Cypress’s motion for injunctive relief in a significant victory for FSL (Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. FSL, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32907 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020)).

(Western District of Texas Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00046-ADA and 6:21-cv-00137-ADA). Represented Socionext and Cadence in patent infringement actions involving DDR controllers.

(Middle District of Florida Case No. 8:18-cv-01582-JDW). Represented Mitsui Chemicals in trade secret litigation involving irrigation systems. Brought successful motion to dismiss the unfair trade practices, unfair competition, fraud, and conspiracy claims (Developmental Techs., LLC v. Mitsui Chems., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64630 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2019)).

(ITC Inv. No. 337 TA 1119). Represented respondents Socionext Inc. and Socionext America Inc. in ITC Section 337 investigation involving systems-on-chips in automobile infotainment systems. The ITC issued its final determination on April 30, 2020, affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s initial determination that none of the respondents violated Section 337.

(Western District of Texas Case No. 1:17-cv-01158-LY). Represented Buffalo in patent infringement action involving storage devices. Claim nos. 11-15 of the patent-in-suit were invalidated as indefinite during claim construction (USB Bridge Sols., LLC v. Buffalo Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67678 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020)).

(ITC Inv. Nos. 337 TA 1128, 337-TA-1129, and 337-TA-1137). Represented Nikon respondents in ITC Section 337 investigations involving semiconductor lithography technology.

(Northern District of California Case No. 3:17-cv-02109-SK and Eastern District of Texas Case No. 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL). Represent Fujitsu in pending patent infringement action involving data compression. Motion to transfer venue from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California was successful (Realtime Data, LLC v. Fujitsu Am., Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27426 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2017).

(ITC Inv. No. 337 TA 1059). Represented Nikon respondents in ITC Section 337 investigation involving digital camera technology.

(Central District of California Case Nos. 2:17-cv-03221 and 2:17 cv 07083). Represented Nikon in patent infringement actions involving digital camera technology. Both cases resulted in complete victories at trial for Nikon.

(ITC Investigation No. 337 TA 841). Represented respondent Fujitsu Limited in ITC Section 337 involving computer technology.


IAM Patent 1000 2022

Ranked in Japan for Litigation