Jason F. Hoffman

Partner

Washington, D.C.
T +1.202.861.1657
F +1.202.861.1783

“Jason Hoffman is an outstanding litigator at Baker & Hostetler. He immerses himself not only in the case to fully understand the issues, but also the business objective of the clients.”

— The Legal 500 (2021)

Overview

Jason Hoffman’s patent infringement litigation experience by the numbers: 10 jury trial victories, including 4 defense verdicts in the Eastern District of Texas; 4 bench trial victories, including a win at the International Trade Commission; 6 summary judgment rulings of noninfringement; and 9 victories at the Federal Circuit.*

Jason litigates patents, as well as other forms of intellectual property (copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets), and has appeared on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants in numerous jurisdictions across the country and on appeal at the Federal Circuit. He frequently advises clients with respect to all forms of technology, and has a knack for making the complex simple. His exposure to the courtroom came early in his legal career and his interest in intellectual property litigation is reflected in his frequent writings and media appearances on the topic.

Jason is also an expert on patent law, and presents an annual webinar every February highlighting key Federal Circuit and Supreme Court decisions entitled: One Year of Patent Law in 60 Minutes.

*Does not guarantee similar results in comparable matters.

Experience

Trial*

  • Represented a plaintiff renewable energy company in a patent infringement matter in Boston involving wind turbines. The jury returned a verdict of infringement, no invalidity, and awarded damages. The judge permanently enjoined the defendant from making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing or installing its infringing wind turbines in the U.S.
  • Represented a plaintiff software vendor in a patent infringement matter in Chicago involving high-performance trading software. The jury returned a verdict of infringement, no invalidity, and awarded damages.
  • Represented a plaintiff cable company in a patent infringement matter in Philadelphia involving text messaging. The jury returned a verdict of infringement, no invalidity, and awarded damages.
  • Represented a defendant manufacturer in a patent infringement matter in Baltimore involving evaporative fluid coolers. The jury returned a verdict that claims of the asserted patent were not infringed, the claims were invalid, and awarded zero damages.
  • Represented a respondent pharmaceutical company in a patent infringement matter at the International Trade Commission involving strontium-rubidium radioisotope infusion systems. After a bench trial, the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission later affirmed a ruling that the claims of the asserted patent were invalid.
  • Represented a defendant clothing retailer in a patent infringement matter in Marshall, Texas, involving its gift card system. The jury returned a verdict that the asserted patent was not infringed.
  • Represented a defendant bookseller in a patent infringement matter in Marshall, Texas, involving its gift card system. The jury returned a verdict that the asserted patent was not infringed.
  • Represented a defendant home furnishing retailer in a patent infringement case in Marshall, Texas, involving its gift card system. The jury returned a verdict that the two asserted patents were not infringed.  
  • Represented a defendant manufacturer in a patent infringement matter in Marshall, Texas, involving high-voltage electrical connectors. The jury returned a verdict that the two asserted patents were invalid for anticipation and obviousness.
  • Represented a defendant gift card program manager in a patent infringement matter in Memphis, Tennessee, involving gift card technology. The jury returned a verdict that the patent was not infringed, invalid for obviousness, invalid for failure to name all the inventors and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
  • Represented a plaintiff software manufacturer in a patent infringement matter in Richmond, Virginia. The jury returned an award of $62.3 million and found that the defendant willfully infringed the patent.
  • Represented a plaintiff inventor in three Section 145 actions in Washington, DC. After three separate bench trials, the district court judge issued a decision awarding three patents to the plaintiff.

Federal Circuit*

  • Represented an appellee manufacturer in a patent infringement matter. The client obtained affirmance of the jury verdict of noninfringement of its evaporative fluid coolers and invalidity of the appellant’s patent.
  • Represented appellee pharmaceutical company in a patent infringement matter. The client obtained affirmance of the International Trade Commission’s determination that all asserted claims were invalid.
  • Represented an appellant gift card exchange company in a patent infringement matter. The client obtained confirmation by the Federal Circuit that its 52 reexamined claims were valid.
  • Represented an appellant payment network in a patent infringement matter. The client obtained reversal of the lower court's claim construction as well as the entry of a judgment of noninfringement regarding a patent relating to prepaid stored-value cards.
  • Represented an appellee home furnishing retailer in a patent infringement matter. The client obtained affirmance of the jury verdict of noninfringement of its gift card system.
  • Represented an appellee gift card program manager in a declaratory judgment matter. The client obtained affirmance of invalidity of a patent relating to point-of-sale transactions.
  • Represented an appellee gift card program manager in a patent infringement matter. The client obtained affirmance of noninfringement involving patents relating to prepaid debit cards and electronic funds transfer.
  • Represented an appellee manufacturer in a matter regarding the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO's) interpretation of the statute establishing the inter partes reexamination of patents. The client obtained affirmance of the district court's grant of summary judgment.
  • Represented an appellee membership warehouse in a patent infringement matter. The client obtained affirmance of the lower court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of a patent relating to gift card technology. 

Dispositive Motions*

  • Represented a defendant gift card program manager in a patent infringement case relating to prepaid gift cards. The client obtained summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to all asserted patent claims.
  • Represented a plaintiff pharmaceutical company against the United States International Trade Commission involving the potential disclosure of confidential information of the client. The client obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the Commission from disclosing client-confidential information.
  • Represented a defendant semiconductor manufacturing company in a patent infringement case relating to semiconductors. The client obtained dismissal via a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
  • Represented a counterclaim-defendant cable company in a patent infringement case relating to video on demand. The client obtained summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to both asserted patents.
  • Represented a defendant payment network in a patent infringement case relating to prepaid phone cards. The client obtained summary judgment of noninfringement.
  • Represented a plaintiff gift card program manager seeking invalidation of the defendant's patent relating to prepaid debit cards and phone cards. The client obtained summary judgment resulting in the invalidity of all claims of the patent-in-suit.
  • Represented a declaratory judgment plaintiff manufacturer seeking a declaration of noninfringement of the defendant's patent relating to network routers. The client obtained summary judgment of noninfringement.
  • Represented a defendant gift card program manager in a patent infringement case relating to prepaid debit cards and electronic funds transfer. The client obtained summary judgment of noninfringement.
  • Represented an intervenor regarding the USPTO's interpretation of the statute establishing the inter partes reexamination of patents. The client obtained dismissal of the matter on summary judgment.
  • Represented a defendant membership warehouse in a patent infringement case relating to gift card technology. The client obtained summary judgment of noninfringement. 
  • Represented a plaintiff casino in a trademark and domain name dispute. The client obtained relief through the court's granting of a motion for summary judgment.

*Does not guarantee similar results in comparable matters.

Recognitions and Memberships

Recognitions

  • The Legal 500 United States (2021)
    • Recommended in Patents: Litigation (full coverage)

News

News

Press Releases

Community

  • Bethesda Arts & Entertainment District, Inc. (2006 to 2010)
    • Chair
    • Member, Board of Directors 
  • Bethesda Urban Partnership, Inc. (2000 to 2005)
    • Chair
    • Vice Chair
    • Secretary
    • Member, Board of Directors

Featured Video

One Year of Patent Law in 60 Minutes | 2021 Edition
Play Video

Hear highlights of significant Federal and Supreme Court patent cases.

Prior Positions

  • Law Clerk for the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (1997 to 1998)

Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
  • U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • District of Columbia
  • Maryland

Education

  • J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1997, cum laude
  • B.A., Brandeis University, 1994, magna cum laude

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
Settlement Offers Can Be Used Against You (in a Patent Case)
By Jason F. Hoffman
December 23, 2019
Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence protects settlement communications. The language of the rule is clear. Such communications are “not admissible . . . to prove or disprove the validity . . . of a disputed claim.” However, there are...
Read More ->