Justin M. Barnes


Los Angeles - HQ

Direct: 213.293.3010
Email: jbarnes@stris.com

Justin Barnes is a trial and appellate attorney focusing on high-stakes patent litigation. Mr. Barnes has represented some of the world’s best-known companies at every stage of litigation.  He has served as trial counsel at over half a dozen trials, has authored numerous briefs as well as argued before the Federal Circuit, and has also been counsel on multiple cases before the Supreme Court, both as counsel for litigants and as counsel for amici.  Mr. Barnes has experience spanning a wide range of technologies, including audio and video compression standards, other digital signal processing techniques, digital and analog circuitry, medical devices, e-commerce, enterprise software, and other complex technologies.

Mr. Barnes also has extensive case experience on damages topics, including multiple successful Daubert motions and multiple successful JMOL motions overturning substantial jury verdicts. He has also spoken at numerous conferences and CLEs regarding changes in patent damages. Mr. Barnes has been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® every year since 2015 and has been named to the National Law Journal’s Appellate Hot List multiple times.

Mr. Barnes received his J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his B.S. in Engineering from Harvey Mudd College.

Mr. Barnes is currently on sabbatical in the Canary Islands.

Mr. Barnes has significant experience handling both patent litigation and patent appeals.

Patent Litigation
Microsoft Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. – No. 02-CV-2060 B (S.D. Cal.)
Defended Microsoft in patent trial relating to MP3 audio compression. Tried to jury verdict in January-February 2007. Obtained largest defense verdict in patent law history, receiving Judgment as a Matter of Law, reversing $1.538 Billion verdict. Published at 509 F.Supp.2d 912 (S.D. Cal. 2007). The Federal Circuit affirmed the holding. Published at 543 F.3d 710 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Multimedia Patent Trust v. LG Electronics, Inc. – No. 10-CV-2618-H (S.D. Cal.)
Defended LG in patent trial in December 2012 relating to H.264 and MPEG-4 video compression. Jury found non-infringement on all claims of all patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed the verdict. Published at 2014 WL 3512824 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc. – Nos. 3:15-cv-01879, 3:17-cv-01118 (S.D. Cal.)
Lead counsel representing Pacific Surf Designs in multiple suits involving wave simulator rides, both in district court and in IPR proceedings. Obtained dismissal based on lack of standing for one patent, obtained cancellation of other patent from PTAB.

Multimedia Patent Trust v. LG Electronics, Inc. – No. 12-CV-2731-H (S.D. Cal.)
Defended LG in litigation relating to H.264 encoding and decoding. Won summary judgment of non-infringement based on preclusion grounds. Published at 2013 WL 5779645 (S.D. Cal. 2013). The Federal Circuit affirmed the holding. Published at 2014 WL 3512829 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Versata Software v. SAP America, Inc. – No. 2:07-CV-00153 (E.D. Tex.)
Defended SAP in patent litigation relating to pricing methodology for enterprise software. Obtained judgment as a matter of law and new trial from original jury verdict. Re-trial on damages resulted in adverse award.

Alcatel-Lucent v. Amazon, Inc. – No. 6:09–CV–422–LED (E.D. Tex.)
Defended multiple online retailers in patent litigation relating to e-commerce, and represented Amazon in counterclaims regarding networking. Case settled favorably on eve of trial.

Audio MPEG Inc. et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company – No. 2:15-cv-00073 (E.D.Va.)
Represented Hewlett Packard in patent litigation relating to MP3 audio compression, including counterclaim alleging antitrust violations due to improper patent pooling and violations of standard setting organization’s discloure policy. Case settled favorably.

Asustek Computer, Inc. v. IBM Corp. – No. 08-cv-602 (S.D. Cal.)
Represented Asustek in patent litigation relating to storage area networks and blade server technology. Case settled favorably while summary judgment motions were pending.

Asylum Research Corp. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. – No. CV03-6682 GW (C.D. Cal.)
Defended Asylum in patent litigation and trade secret matter relating to atomic force microscopes. Case settled favorably on eve of trial.

Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp. – No. 5:01-CV-302 (E.D. Tex.)
Represented Intel as defendant and counterclaim plaintiff in patent litigation matter relating to chipsets and network interface cards. Case settled favorably on eve of trial.
Patent Appeals
ION Geophysical Corp. v. WesternGeco L.L.C. - Nos. 2013–1527, 2014–1121, 2014–1526, 2014–1528 (Fed. Cir.)
Represented defendant ION in appeal regarding marine geophysical surveys. The Federal Circuit reversed nearly $100 Million in lost profits damages. Published at 2015 WL 4032980 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2015). The Supreme Court vacated the reversal, and the case is currently pending back before the Federal Circuit.

Microsoft Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. – No. 07-CV-2000 H (S.D. Cal.)
Defended Microsoft in patent trial relating to MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and VC-1 video compression. Tried to jury verdict in February-April 2008. Jury found Lucent’s video compression patent invalid and not infringed. Case settled favorably on appeal.

UCLA, J.D. (2001)
Harvey Mudd, B.S. (1998)