James M. Heintz

James M. Heintz

Partner
About

James Heintz focuses on patent litigation and prosecution with an emphasis on electrical and computer technologies, including encryption technologies, conditional access television systems, computer operating system software, electronic train control and signaling systems, optical sensors, integrated circuits and semiconductors.

James has represented clients in patent litigation in the US involving a wide variety of technologies. Among them are satellite television systems, video processing, online computer gaming, telecommunications testing equipment and power tools. He also counsels clients regarding patentability, validity and infringement issues.

Bar admissionsDistrict of ColumbiaNew YorkUnited States Patent and Trademark OfficeVirginia
CourtsSupreme Court of the United StatesUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitUnited States District Court for the District of ColumbiaUnited States District Court for the District of Maryland

EXPERIENCE

Representative Cases
  • Barkan Wireless IP Holdings, L.P. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless – Represented Samsung in this patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Texas regarding three patents relate to cellular networks. The case settled favorably before trial
  • Representing a US-based software company in managing its patent portfolio regarding cutting-edge human-computer interaction technologies
  • Represented a security systems company in successfully developing a litigation strategy to enforce licensed patent technology, and prevailed upon a fully-favorable claim construction
  • Certain Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment Mask Systems and Components Thereof (337-TA-1136) – Represented ResMed and its entities in the ITC as part of a multijurisdictional suit in the US, UK, Germany, Australia and New Zealand regarding sleep apnea devices. The matter concluded favorably
  • Applied Signal Technology v. ViaSat et al: Represented plaintiff in Northern District of California patent litigation involving satellite signal processing technology. Case is ongoing
  • Vellata v. Oracle: Represented defendant in Central District of California patent litigation involving Internet telephony technology. Case settled after plaintiff dedicated its patents to the public
  • Hewlett-Packard v. Acer: Represented plaintiff in ITC trial involving patent for monitor resolution technology. Case settled after trial but before decision
  • Northrop Grumman v. ITT: Arbitration involving electronic countermeasures technology. Arbitration settled
  • New Medium Technologies, LLC v. Miranda Technologies, Inc.: Represented defendant in Northern District of Illinois in patent litigation involving video technology. Case settled on favorable terms prior to trial
  • Thomas v. EchoStar Satellite: Represented defendant in Western District of N.C. in patent litigation involving conditional access technology. The patent focused on smart card technologies for set top boxes. Case settled on favorable terms after grant of motion for summary judgment on laches and favorable Markman decision for defendant
  • Irdeto v. EchoStar Communications: Represented defendant in District of Colorado in patent litigation involving encryption technology. The patents focused on encryption key management and generation techniques. Case settled on favorable terms after summary judgment of non-infringement on main patent was upheld by Federal Circuit
  • Ryobi v. Porter-Cable: Represented defendant in Northern District of Illinois in patent litigation involving laser guide technology for power tools. Case settled on favorable terms prior to trial
  • Lewis v. Boss Media: Represented defendant in District of Nevada in patent litigation involving video technology. Case settled on favorable terms prior to trial
  • IPPV v. EchoStar: Represented defendant in District of Delaware. The patents focused on pseudorandom bit stream generation and conditional access system credit management techniques. Case settled on favorable terms after trial during pendency of appeal
Education
  • J.D., St. John's University 1996
    magna cum laude
  • B.S.E.E., State University of New York at Stony Brook 1988

Awards

James is recognized by Docket Navigator as a top five PTAB lawyer in the US representing petitioners (2019 Year In Review report), and repeatedly highlighted in the IAM Patent 1000 where they highlight he is "among the most technically savvy patent litigators around thanks to years of prosecution experience" and is "wonderful at translating complicated ideas – be they technical or legal – into straightforward, on-point explanations".

  • Chambers USA
    2016 - Band 3, Northern Virginia Intellectual Property
    Chambers comments, "James Heintz of DLA Piper LLP (US) is experienced in handling patent prosecution and litigation matters, and is often sought out by clients from the computer and electronic areas. Clients report that they 'have been really impressed with him."
    2014-15 - Band 3, Northern Virginia Intellectual Property
    2012-13 - Up and Coming, Northern Virginia Intellectual Property
  • The Legal 500 United States
    2021 - Recommended, Patents Litigation: Full Coverage

Connect

Phone

+1 703 773 4148
(Work, Northern Virginia)