MEMBER
Javier Sobrado
Javier is a registered patent attorney and is board certified in intellectual property law by the Florida bar. He has litigated a wide variety of cases throughout the country, in both federal and state courts, involving patents, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights, international law, and false advertising. Javier’s experience in the field of patent law is extensive and includes litigation, counseling, due diligence, freedom to operate, patentability studies, opinion work, and procurement. His practice spans a diverse range of technical disciplines, including industrial processes, mechanical devices, electronics, telecommunications, computer-related inventions, business methods, automotive accessories, conventional power generation and alternative energies.
Javier attended the University of Miami School of Law where he graduated with high honors. During law school, he immersed himself in the study of internet and patent law and wrote papers on the legal issues surrounding the emerging field of virtual worlds. Javier also pursued his interests in international law as a member of UM’s 2006 Jessup Regional International Moot Court Competition team, International Moot Court Board, and International and Comparative Law Review.
Before attending law school, Javier enhanced his computer programming knowledge by working on three published video game titles, including Civilization III, developing user interfaces, in-game help databases, AI routines and even writing an assembly level translucency algorithm. His undergraduate studies spanned a broad variety of topics, including artificial intelligence, computer graphics, operating systems and VLSI design, in route to an A.B. in computer science and electrical engineering at Harvard University.
Education
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW
J.D., Magna Cum Laude
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
A.B., Computer Science (Mind, Brain, Behavior Program, Computational Neuroscience Tract) & Computer, Electrical and Systems Engineering, Cum Laude
Court Admissions
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Florida Supreme Court
Honors and Awards
Florida Super Lawyers, 2018-2019
Super Lawyers, Rising Star, 2014-2017
Professional Memberships
American Intellectual Property Law Association
Harvard Business School Alumni Angels of South Florida
Representative Cases/Matters
BlackBerry Limited v. BLU Products Inc., 1:16-cv-23535 (S.D.Fla. 2016) and LG Electronics, Inc. v. BLU Products Inc., 17-cv-00327 (S.D.Fla. 2017): Represented defendant in multi-patent infringement lawsuits involving both standards essential patents and non-standards-essential patents. Prepared petitions for Inter Partes Review, and leveraged same to negotiated settlement on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
EHS Lens Phillippines, Inc. v. Essilor International et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-563 (E.D. Va. 2016): Represented defendants in patent infringement action regarding manufacturing of back-side progressive lens facing potential 9 figures in liability. Matter settled favorably near the close of discovery after receiving the Markman order.
Gamon Plus, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Co., Case No. 15-cv-8940 (N.D. Ill. 2015): Represented defendants/petitioners in preparing Inter Partes Review petitions for four (4) design patents (IPR2017-0091, 94, 95, and 96]. All four petitions were instituted. The patent owner allowed two (2) of the patents to be invalidated. The Federal Circuit would ultimately reverse a finding of validity for the other two patents in a rare review of a design patent IPR proceeding.
LD Technology, LLC v. Impeto Medical SaS, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20109 (S.D. Fla. 2015): Represented defendant in multi-faceted patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition regarding sudomotor function measurement medical device technology. First chair for Markman hearing, arguing construction for key claim terms that were adopted by the Court. Matter settled favorably near the close of discovery after receiving the Markman order.
Fontem Ventures B.V. v. VMR Products, LLC, Case Nos. 14-1655, CV 14-8161, CV 14-9273 (C.D. Cal.): Represented one (1) of nine (9) defendants in a consolidated patent infringement action concerning early patents on electronic cigarettes. Matter settled favorably after several IPRs were instituted.
Sensus USA, Inc. v. Certified Measurement, LLC, IPR2015-01454 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board 2015): Represented petitioner in an Inter Partes Review proceeding before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The PTAB granted the petition for review of all claims for which the IPR was requested, resulting in a settlement of the co-pending lawsuit between the parties.
Rain Gutter Pros LLC v. MGP Manufacturing LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00458 (W.D. Wash. 2014): Presented claim construction arguments on behalf of patentee which were fully adopted by the court, and deposed corporate representatives, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.
SIPCO, LLC v. Coulomb Technologies, et al., Case No. 6:11-cv-00048 (E.D. Tex. 2012): Represented defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit involving wireless mesh networks. Obtained favorable Markman ruling which was followed by a favorable settlement agreement for the client.
Titan Atlas Mfg. Inc. v. Sisk, Case No. 1:11-cv-00012 (W.D.Va. 2011) & Sisk v. Strata Mince Services LLC, Case No. 3:11-cv-00264 (S.D. Ill. 2011): Represented patentee in patent infringement and breach of contract action against distributor and competing manufacturer. Obtained ruling finding that one defendant had engaged in discovery violations, including possible perjury, and settled the case on favorable terms.
Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. Case No. 08-CV-00542 (D.Del. 2008): Represented defendant and counter-claimant in five patent litigation from filing of the answer, through the jury trial on liability, after getting the damages and willfulness issues bifurcated. Obtained ruling that some asserted patents were not infringed, and that others were invalid in view of prior art and for derivation, leading to eventual settlement. Appeals for this case established precedential case law that no presumption of irreparable harm exists in determining whether a permanent injunction should be entered (Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., 659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) and that the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. s. 1292(c)(2) to hear appeals from patent infringement cases where damages issues had been bifurcated, but not yet tried (Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. 719 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc)).
Get in touch
We at The Brickell IP Group know that finding the right attorney to represent you is a choice not to be taken lightly. That’s why we offer free consultations to walk you through your needs, the scope of your goals, and your budget.