Max Olson is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group and Litigation Department. Max’s practice includes all aspects of dispute resolution with special emphasis on patent litigation, international arbitration, trade secret litigation, sports litigation, and adversarial patent license negotiations. Max served as the chair of the Tokyo office Litigation Department from 2006 to 2013, and managing partner of the Los Angeles office from 2004 through 2006.
Max recently led the firm’s patent litigation teams on behalf of JOLED Inc. in the global enforcement of its OLED display patents against Samsung’s Galaxy phones through parallel litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:20-cv-559) and the Japan Customs Office. Max also led the firm’s patent litigation teams defending infringement actions brought by Samsung Display and/or its affiliate, Intellectual Keystone Technology, against JOLED and its customers, including ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer Int’l, in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1257 (In re Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same) and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case Nos. 6:21-cv-00017 and 6:21-cv-00053).
Max led the firm’s litigation and arbitration teams on behalf of Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited (“FSL”) in a global dispute with Cypress Semiconductor over the intellectual property rights in and ownership of thousands of photomasks used in the manufacture of semiconductors. Max defeated Cypress’s motion for injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a significant victory for FSL (Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. FSL, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32907 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020)) and, filed counterclaims against Cypress in an arbitration before the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association.
Max represented Mitsui Chemicals in trade secret litigation involving irrigation systems in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida which included a successful motion by Max 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)).
Max represented U.S. Olympic gymnast Paul Hamm before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland, the world’s highest court for resolving sports disputes, in the highly publicized dispute over the gold medal in the men’s individual all-around event in the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. A panel of three CAS arbitrators rejected the appeal filed by the bronze medalist, Korean gymnast Yang Tae Young, and held unanimously that Mr. Hamm should keep his gold medal. Max also led the firm’s arbitration team on behalf of a mixed martial arts fighter and obtained an award from the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association releasing the fighter from an unfavorable contract with his promoter.
Max has also represented Fujitsu, FSL, Socionext, Konica Minolta, TDK, Yamaha, Micron Memory Japan, Advantest, Sega, and other major corporations in various adversarial patent license negotiations against some of the world’s largest patent holders.
Max is currently serving as the President of The Tokyo IP American Inn of Court for 2021-22. He is also a registered gaikokuho-jimu-bengoshi and a member of the Daini Tokyo Bar Association, the Litigation Section and Intellectual Property Law Section of the American Bar Association, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association.
Max received his M.A. and B.A., magna cum laude, from Harvard University and his J.D., cum laude, from the University of Michigan.
Show More(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.
Disclaimer
Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.
