Kevin P.B. Johnson

Johnson, the powerhouse Quinn Emanuel intellectual property litigator who has been involved in every U.S. trial between rival smartphone producers Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., is a storyteller.

“We put on mini plays,” Johnson said, describing the role trial litigators like him play. “The best story, the most credible, the most believable story wins.”

Johnson, educated at Cornell University as an engineer, turned to law school as a way to combine his passion for technology, telling stories and competition.

It’s with that combination of talents that Johnson defended Samsung in two trials in the Northern District, helping to pursue an offensive case against Apple. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., 11-cv-01846, 12-cv-00630-LHK (N.D. Cal., filed April 15, 2011 and Feb. 8, 2012).

“I was literally going across the hallway questioning witnesses in both trials,” Johnson remembered.

In 2016, one of the cases made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in Samsung’s favor holding that design patent infringement damages should be limited to articles of manufacture.

Johnson is now prepping for a retrial of the damages portion of that case, set to commence on May 14.

Last year, he successfully defended a number of American software and database companies like Salesforce.com Inc. and NetSuite Inc. against patent infringement claims brought by Uniloc USA Inc., which Johnson described as a patent troll that buys patents with the intent of pursuing litigation. Uniloc USA Inc. v. NetSuite Inc., 2:16-cv-00862-RWS (E.D. Tex., filed Nov. 10, 2017).

Johnson argued that the cases were meritless, citing 35 U.S.C. § 101, which governs who may actually obtain a patent. It was the “silver bullet to knock the cases out early,” he said.

The strategy worked and when the district court dismissed Uniloc’s claims, it quickly abandoned the litigation.

Among the numerous trials for which Johnson is preparing is a battle between Fujifilm Holdings Corp. and Sony Corp. that will unfold in both the Southern District of New York and the United States International Trade Commission. At the heart of the litigation is a patent dispute over magnetic tape. Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, U.S.I.T.C. Inv. Nos. 1036, 1058.

Though long gone are the days of VCRs, Johnson said that the technology is extremely important.

“It’s really very relevant because lots of companies and banks used magnetic tape to store data on because it’s so efficient,” he said.

— Nicolas Sonnenburg