Intellectual property attorney John Harting primarily focuses his practice on IP-related matters with an emphasis in patent litigation. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants on both sides of the “v,” and in forums including district courts, the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
John has helped his clients obtain over $100 million in settlements and judgments while also successfully defending against large-scale patent infringement allegations.
He has participated in multiple patent infringement trials across the United States and in the ITC, including:
- Representing a Fortune 100 company as a defendant in a multi-phased trial in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Representing a patent owner in an eight-day evidentiary hearing at the ITC.
- Representing a patent owner in a four-week patent infringement trial culminating in a successful jury verdict, damages award, and a permanent injunction against 60 different products. The verdict was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
John has represented clients ranging in size from independent inventors to Fortune 100 companies, in matters involving numerous different technologies related to semiconductors, telecommunications, medical devices, point-of-sale and payment processing, wireless communications standards, and USB and computer-graphics related technologies.
John has also represented clients in numerous disputes involving copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and alleged antitrust violations, as well as in business litigation disputes involving breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and banking and securities regulations.
John seeks to provide maximum benefit to his clients by gaining a complete understanding of their business and litigation goals and then working together with the client to develop an appropriate strategy to achieve them.
John attended law school at the University of Minnesota, where he graduated magna cum laude, Order of the Coif. While in law school, John spent two years as a certified student attorney in the Robins Kaplan Civil Practice Clinic.
As a certified student attorney, John represented numerous clients across a broad spectrum of civil litigation-related areas of law, including first-chairing a two-day bench trial in Hennepin County District Court that resulted in a complete win for his client.
John also previously worked as a Judicial Extern to the Honorable John R. Tunheim, U.S. District Court, Minnesota, and a research assistant to Associate Dean Alexandra Klass. As a research assistant to Associate Dean Klass, John helped research and write numerous law review articles and textbook chapters related to complex areas of natural resource and renewable energies law.
Trane v. William A. Harrison, Inc. (E.D. Tex. No. 20-cv-00084): Represented Trane, a world leader in air conditioning systems, services, and solutions, in a breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secret matter in the Eastern District of Texas. Secured favorable summary judgment ruling finding breach of contract and liability under corresponding liquidated damages provision, and dismissing all remaining counterclaims. Case settled on the courthouse steps minutes prior to voir dire.
Intel Corp. and Apple Inc. v. Fortress Investment Group LLC et al. (N.D. Cal. No. 19-cv-07651): Represented co-defendants INVT Inc. and Inventergy Global in successful defense of alleged antitrust violations resulting in dismissal of complaint with prejudice.
Source One v. Hadley Development (D. Minn. 20-cv-00787): Lead lawyer representing copyright and trademark owner in case relating to camouflage fabric pattern and associated marks; case resolved successfully on confidential terms.
Advanced Micro Devices v. LG Electronics (N.D. Cal. No. 14-cv-01012): Represented plaintiff AMD in patent infringement litigation against LGE in the Northern District of California. Asserted infringement of nine patents covering a wide array of computer-based technologies critical to today’s high-end consumer electronics products, including patents claiming pioneering inventions in USB, GPU, thermal management, and graphics-related technologies. Case involved over 800 accused products, ranging from televisions to smartphones, BD players, projectors, and smart appliances. Successfully resolved after Markman and prior to summary judgment.
PCT International, Inc. v. Holland Electronics, LLC (D. Ariz. No. 12-cv-01797): Represented privately owned telecommunications company in patent infringement case litigated in the District of Arizona against competitor company. Asserted infringement of patent claiming an improved coaxial cable end connector. Second-chaired four-week-long jury trial resulting in reasonable royalty award, finding of infringement by 60 products, and permanent injunction against said 60 products. Verdict was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit (Dkt. No. 16-1061).
Alexsam, Inc. v. Best Buy Stores L.P. (E.D. Tex. No. 2:13-cv-00002-MHS-CMC): Represented Fortune 100 retailer against patent infringement claims filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff alleged infringement of two patents, and sought more than $125 million in damages. The case settled three days prior to a jury trial on infringement, after separate trials on invalidity and inequitable conduct. In total, the litigation spanned more than three years and involved numerous issues unique to the prepaid card industry.
Edge Capture L.L.C. et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 09-cv-1521): Represented independent software vendor in the Northern District of Illinois in patent infringement matter involving automated trading technology. The claims against all defendants were resolved successfully before trial.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., et al. (W.D. Tenn. No. 07-cv-2175): Represented defendant Medtronic in the Western District of Tennessee against infringement allegations filed by Spine Solutions related to Medtronic's artificial lumbar discs. After trial and appeal, the Federal Circuit remanded back to the district court for resolution of damages issues. The matter resolved successfully before the second trial.
- Alzheimer’s Association, Young Champions Advocacy Committee
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.