Max Olson is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group and Litigation Department. Max’s practice includes all aspects of dispute resolution with special emphasis on patent litigation, international arbitration, trade secret litigation, sports litigation, and adversarial patent license negotiations. Max served as the chair of the Tokyo office Litigation Department from 2006 to 2013, and managing partner of the Los Angeles office from 2004 through 2006.
Max recently led the firm’s patent litigation teams on behalf of JOLED Inc. in the global enforcement of its OLED display patents against Samsung’s Galaxy phones through parallel litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:20-cv-559) and the Japan Customs Office. Max also led the firm’s patent litigation teams defending infringement actions brought by Samsung Display and/or its affiliate, Intellectual Keystone Technology, against JOLED and its customers, including ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer Int’l, in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1257 (In re Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same) and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case Nos. 6:21-cv-00017 and 6:21-cv-00053).
Experience
(Western District of Texas Case No. 6:20 cv 00559 ADA). Represented JOLED in the enforcement of its OLED display patents against Samsung’s Galaxy phones.
(ITC Inv. No. 337 TA 1257). Represented respondents JOLED Inc., ASUSTeK Computer Inc., and ASUS Computer International in ITC Section 337 investigation involving OLED displays.
(Western District of Texas Case No. 6:21 cv 00017 ADA). Represented JOLED and its customer ASUSTeK Computer Inc. in patent infringement action involving OLED display technology.
(Western District of Texas Case No. 6:21 cv 00053 ADA). Represented JOLED and its customer ASUSTeK Computer Inc. in patent infringement action involving OLED display technology.
(Central District of California Case No. 2:21 cv 04969 GW). Represented defendants DENSO TEN Limited and DENSO TEN America Limited in patent infringement action involving semiconductor technology.
(Western District of Texas Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00046-ADA and 6:21-cv-00137-ADA). Represented Socionext and Cadence in patent infringement actions involving DDR controllers.
(ITC Inv. No. 337 TA 1119). Represented respondents Socionext Inc. and Socionext America Inc. in ITC Section 337 investigation involving systems-on-chips in automobile infotainment systems. The ITC issued its final determination on April 30, 2020, affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s initial determination that none of the respondents violated Section 337.