Skip to Content

OVERVIEW

Josh Van Hoven is a Partner at Haley Guiliano, where he represents companies facing challenging competitive issues at the intersection of law and technology. Josh’s practice areas are strategic patent portfolio development and technology litigation.

Josh works with growing technology companies to develop patent portfolios that stand up to investor, litigation, and licensing scrutiny. When competing in an environment of multinational behemoths, “a file it and forget it” patent strategy does not achieve parity or competitive advantage. Instead, Josh works with HG’s talented technical and international teams to build bespoke portfolios designed to grow with a company’s market and footprint. Josh maintains intimate involvement in ongoing drafting, prosecution, and portfolio strategy, ensuring portfolios deliver decades of competitive leverage.

Josh also represents companies in technology litigation involving patents, trade secrets, and antitrust. Although he cut his teeth representing large multinationals, Josh’s practice currently focuses on representing private companies and growing public companies against larger competitors and non-practicing entities. With their inherent asymmetry of financial resources or risk, these cases require exceptionally creative and efficient lawyering. Working with a small, immersive team, Josh engages directly with the core legal and technical issues to deliver results, typically against international mega-firms or prolific plaintiffs’ firms. He has represented clients in venues throughout the country, including in Federal District Courts and Courts of Appeals nationwide, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission.

With education and work experience in electrical and mechanical engineering, Josh is particularly suited to work with industries where hardware and software come together, such as industrial IoT, smart home, medical devices, semiconductors, analog circuits, robotics, autonomous vehicles, cannabis technologies, augmented and virtual reality, and RF communications.

Example Matters –

  • NHK Spring Co., Ltd. et al v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. et al, IPR2018-00752 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)

  • CircusTrix Holdings, LLC et al v. Cherokee Gray Eagle IP, LLC, IPR2019-00263 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)

  • Surgical Instrument Service Co., Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 21-cv-03496 (N.D. Cal.)

  • Stormborn Technologies LLC v. Zinwave, LLC, 1-21-cv-02638 (D. Colo.)  

  • Lab2Fab LLC v. Cafe X Technologies, No. CGC-21-593117 (S.F. Super.)

  • Special Master in Datatrak Int’l Inc. v. Medidata Solutions, Inc., 11-cv-00458 (N.D. Ohio)

  • In re Microelectromechanical Systems MEMs Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-876 (International Trade Commission)

  • Cherokee Gray Eagle IP, LLC et al v. CircusTrix, LLC et al, 6-18-cv-00356 (M.D. Fl.)

  • Cherokee Gray Eagle IP, LLC et al v. Rockin’ Jump, LLC et al, 0-18-cv-60502 (S.D. Fl.)

  • RR Donnelley & Sons Company v. Canon Inc. et al, 1-20-cv-02115 (N.D. IIl.)

  • Olivistar, LLC v. Logitech, Inc., 2-14-cv-00533 (E.D. Tex.)

  • InvenSense, Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 2-13-cv-00405 (E.D. Tex.)

  • Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. et al, 1-11-cv-00082 (N.D. Ohio)

  • In re Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-752 (International Trade Commission)

  • Vederi, LLC v. Google LLC, 2-10-cv-07747 (C.D. Cal.)

  • Tria Beauty, Inc. v. Radiancy, Inc., 3:2010-cv-05030 (N.D. Cal.)

  • Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al, 1-10-cv-01370 (N.D. Ohio)

  • In re Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs, 337-TA-706 (International Trade Commission)

  • Motorola Inc. v. Research Motion Limited et al, 1-10-cv-00457 (N.D. Ill.)

  • Stambler v. QVC, Inc. et al, 2-09-cv-00310 (E.D. Tex.)

  • Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Google LLC et al, 6-09-cv-00446 (E.D. Tex.)

  • Bender v. Linear Corporation, 4-09-cv-01154 (N.D. Cal.)

  • ePrize, LLC v. Applied Interact, LLC, 4-07-cv-14338 (E.D. Mich.)

  • OPTi, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al, 2-07-cv-00278 (E.D. Tex.)

  • Roll Rite Corp. v. Automated Integrated Sys., No. 05-1366 (6th Cir.)

  • Roll Rite Corporation v. Automated Integrated Systems, Inc., 4:04-cv-00015-RHB (W.D. Mich.)

  • Tower Automotive Products Company, Inc. v. Lamb Technicon Body and Assembly Systems, No. 02-02414-CK (Mich. Dist.)

Memberships & Affiliations

    • San Francisco Bay Area Intellectual Property Inns of Court
    • Post-Grant Patent Office Practice Committee – Intellectual Property Owners Association
    • Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Bar Association