Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
  • Overview
  • Experience
  • Insights
  • Recognition

About Jason

Jason Zucchi is an experienced trial lawyer practicing intellectual property law for clients ranging from start-ups to Fortune 100 companies. Jason’s practice spans a wide range of technologies including electronics, telecommunications, medical devices, and life sciences. He has successfully litigated IP cases in courts throughout the United States and has significant post-grant experience with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including coordination of co-pending district court litigation and post-grant proceedings. Jason’s practice also involves advising clients on the licensing of their IP, patenting strategies that meet their business objectives, and various other IP matters. In addition, Jason regularly counsels emerging businesses seeking to commercialize and protect their innovations.

Jason is also a founding member of Fish’s hybrid and contingent fee litigation group and has extensive experience handling these types of matters. Jason’s approach to litigation involves creating the optimal case strategy to focus on the issues that will have the greatest impact on the outcome of the case. Using this approach, Jason has generated positive outcomes for his clients, often short of trial. Since 2005, Fish has recovered over $300 million on behalf of hybrid and contingent fee clients.

Speaking Engagements

  • “Legal Issues with Hybrid and Remote Workplaces,” ACC General Counsel Forum (September 30, 2021)
  • “Update on Key Patent Decisions from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit and How They Will Affect Your Business,” Minnesota Association of Corporate Counsel Annual Conference (June 2019)
  • University of Minnesota Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship Clinic (2019)
  • “Update on Key Supreme Court Patent Decisions,” Minnesota Association of Corporate Counsel Annual Conference (June 2018)
  • “Enhanced Damages in Patent Cases After Halo v. Pulse,” Minnesota Association of Corporate Counsel Annual Conference (June 2017)
  • University of Minnesota Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship Clinic (2017)
  • Moderator, 16th Annual General Counsel Forum (September 2016)
  • “Here We Go Again: 7 Ways Congress May (Yet Again) Change the Patent Laws and How Those Changes May Affect You,” Fish & Richardson Patents on Tap CLE Event (September 10, 2015)

Speaker, “The Current Landscape for NPE Litigation: Curbing NPE Activity,” Minnesota Association of Corporate Counsel Annual In-House Counsel Conference (June 18, 2015).

“Enhanced Damages in Patent Cases After Halo v. Pulse,” Minnesota Association of Corporate Counsel Annual In-House Counsel Conference (June 15, 2017).

Co-Speaker, “The Current Landscape for NPE Litigation: Curbing NPE Activity,” Minnesota Association of Corporate Counsel Annual In-House Counsel Conference (June 18, 2015).

Publications

An Overview of the TROL Act Recently Introduced in the House” Fish Litigation Blog (April 17, 2015).

Congress Will Likely Take Aim at Abusive Patent Demand Letters in 2015” Fish Litigation Blog (April 8, 2015).

 

District Court Cases (Representing Plaintiffs)

Wasica Finance GmbH, et al. v. Schrader International Inc., et al. (District of Delaware) – Represented Wasica and BlueArc against Schrader in a long-running patent case involving tire pressure monitoring systems. A jury found Schrader liable for induced and contributory infringement and awarded $31.2 million in damages. Read more about the case here. Subsequently obtained an additional $12 million in prejudgment interest for plaintiffs. Read more here.

Netcraft Corp. v. AT&T Mobility et al. (District of Delaware) – Represented Netcraft in a patent case involving third-party payment systems. Successfully settled the case with all defendants after obtaining favorable claim construction and pre-trial rulings. The resulting licenses totaled nearly $40 million.

Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc., et al. (District of Nevada) – Represented Halo Electronics, a small family business, in a long-running patent case involving packages for surface-mount transformers. A jury found Pulse liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents’ validity, and awarded damages. The court later awarded Halo a permanent injunction against Pulse. The Supreme Court ultimately set a new standard for enhanced damages based on the Halo case, reported at 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016).

Vehicle IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al. (District of Delaware) – Represented Vehicle IP in a patent case involving computer dispatching systems. Successfully settled the case with several defendants after obtaining favorable pre-trial rulings. The resulting licenses totaled nearly $9 million.

Wasica Finance GmbH, et al. v. Continental Automotive Systems U.S. Inc. (District of Delaware) – Represented Wasica and BlueArc against Continental in a patent case involving tire pressure monitoring systems. Successfully settled the case after obtaining a favorable Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling.

Osteoplastics v. 3D Systems and Medical Modeling (District of Colorado) – Represented Osteoplastics in a patent case involving methods of designing custom implants and other medical devices.  Successfully settled the case with all defendants after obtaining favorable rulings.

Harvest Technologies Corp. v. Thermogenesis Corp. and Ceiling Technologies LLC (District of Delaware) – Represented Harvest Technologies in a case involving point-of-care cell separation technology. Successfully settled the case after winning key claim construction rulings.

Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. Nanobac Pharmaceuticals Inc. (District of Minnesota) – Represented Mayo in a breach of contract case against Nanobac. Successfully obtained a judgment in favor of Mayo.

District Court Cases (Representing Defendants)

Bel Fuse Inc. v. Halo Electronics Inc. (District of New Jersey) – Represented Halo Electronics in a patent case involving Ethernet connectors. After an invalidity trial that resulted in a hung jury, Halo obtained a favorable cross-license for its patents in a co-pending case.

Polaris Industries Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc., et al. (District of Minnesota) – Represented Arctic Cat in series of patent infringement cases related to off-road vehicles. Successfully settled the case after winning several key rulings.

Mass Engineered Design Inc. v. Milestone AV Technologies LLC, et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Milestone in a multi-patent infringement case related to multi-display systems. Successfully settled the case after six months of litigation.

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Milestone AV Technologies LLC (District of Delaware)Represented Milestone in a multi-patent infringement case related to Quick Response Codes in product packaging. Successfully settled the case after only two months of litigation.

L.C. Eldridge Sales Co., Ltd., et al. v. Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd., et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Twin City Fan in a patent infringement case related to blowers for the offshore drilling rig industry.  Successfully vacated injunction after obtaining a favorable Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling.

Post-Grant Proceedings

Fisher & Paykel Healthare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) – Represented ResMed in several IPRs involving patents covering continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) masks and devices. Successfully settled the IPRs after obtaining several favorable Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other rulings.

Continental Automotive Systems U.S. Inc. v. Wasica Finance GmbH, et al. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) – Represented Wasica and BlueArc in several IPRs filed by Continental during a co-pending district court litigation. Successfully settled the district court litigation after obtaining favorable a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling.

Schrader International Inc., et al. v. Wasica Finance GmbH, et al. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) – Represented Wasica and BlueArc in a several IPRs filed by Schrader during a co-pending district court litigation. Obtained a favorable Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling and, once the district court litigation resumed, a jury found Schrader liable for induced and contributory infringement and awarded $31.2 million in damages.

Named in Law360, “Law360‘s Weekly Verdict: Legal Lions & Lambs” (February 20, 2020).

Recognized as “Up & Coming Lawyer” by Minnesota Lawyer (2016).

Focus Areas
Education

J.D. magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, University of Minnesota Law School (2007) Note and Comment Editor & Staff Member, University of Minnesota Law Review (2005-2007)


B.S., Law, Behavioral Science, Psychology, University of Wisconsin (2002)

Admissions
  • Minnesota 2007
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Memberships & Affiliations

Intellectual Property and Communications Committees of the Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter

Alumni & Student Relations Committee for the University of Minnesota Law School

Member of the American Bar Association

Member of the Minnesota High Tech Association

Member of the Association for Corporate Growth, Minnesota Chapter

What's trending with Jason

TOP