Areas of Focus
Ed Anderson is an intellectual property law trailblazer with deep roots in the Silicon Valley legal community. As one of the first generation of lead IP trial lawyers in the Silicon Valley, Ed has litigated some of the historic IP cases in the Silicon Valley and the US International Trade Commission (ITC). He leverages his four decades of litigation and jury trial experience to successfully guide clients before federal, state, and appellate courts and particularly before the ITC.
A leading authority on the ITC, Ed has represented clients in over a dozen investigations through or shortly before trial, including successfully trying two ITC cases during a single summer. Beyond the ITC, he has served as lead trial counsel and tried cases in numerous matters before the federal courts nationwide, California state courts, and as appellate counsel before the Federal and Ninth Circuits. Ed also has extensive mediation and arbitration experience, as a representative and as an arbitrator and mediator.
National and international clients in the computer, consumer electronics, medical device, semiconductor, software, telecommunications, and pharmaceutical industries turn to Ed for counsel, and he advises a wide range of major and emerging technology companies in managing their intellectual property portfolios.
The legal industry, globally and regionally, has honored Ed for his work. His accolades include being named one of Silicon Valley’s top 300 lawyers, recognized in numerous editions of Best Lawyers and Super Lawyers in Intellectual Property, and for multiple years as one of the Daily Journal's leading IP litigators in California. The International Legal 500 guide recognized him as among the best-known ITC practitioners.
In line with Jenner & Block’s values, Ed has a long history of pro bono and community service. As a young lawyer, he undertook numerous pro bono matters for the ACLU and the Silicon Valley Law Foundation, the largest provider of pro bono legal services in the region. He served on the organization’s board for more than 20 years. In the community, Ed has served on the boards of several educational and neighborhood institutions.
Ed also has played a critical role in the establishment, leadership, and growth of intellectual property law practices since the earliest days of the Silicon Valley. Ed has served as the founder of offices and practice groups of AM Law 100 firms, the managing partner of AM Law 100 offices and practice groups and as the managing partner and chairman of the then-largest IP firm in the Silicon Valley and one of the country’s largest IP boutique law firms.
A ‘responsive, smart, and an excellent attorney.’
International Legal 500
Areas of Focus
Representative Matters
Extensive trial experience in the International Trade Commission:
- In Re Certain LTE and 3G Compliant Cellular communication Devices, 337-TA-1138. Represented HTC. Prevailed at trial and before the Federal Circuit.
- In Re Earpiece Devices Having Positioning and Retaining Structure and Components Thereof, 337-TA-912 (2014). Represented Monster in an ITC case filed by Bose concerning headphones. Favorably settled two weeks before trial.
- In Re Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-855 (2012). Represented Monster in an ITC case filed by Hitachi concerning headphones. Favorably settled three weeks before trial.
- In Re Integrated Solar Power Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-811 (2011). Represented Canadian Solar in an ITC case filed by Westinghouse Solar, Inc. concerning solar panels. Favorably settled before trial.
- In Re Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same Investigation, 337-TA-605 (2007). Represented respondent STMicroelectronics N.V. The complainant, Tessera Technologies, Inc., asserted two patents against ST NV and other respondents Qualcomm, Motorola, Freescale, AMD and Spansion. Acted as lead counsel for all respondents at a three week trial. The ALJ ruled that the respondents did not infringe the asserted patents. Subsequently the Commission reversed the ALJ's determination but, after remand, no exclusion order was entered. The matter was later settled.
- In Re Certain Programmable Logic Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-453 (2001). Represented respondent Xilinx in an investigation by Altera involving patents relating to programmable logic device semiconductor chips. The investigation settled favorably for our client prior to trial.
- In Re Certain Field Programmable Gate Arrays and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-441 (2000). Represented complainant Xilinx in patent infringement investigation against Altera involving semiconductor circuit patents, asserting three patents on field programmable gate arrays. Acted as lead counsel in a three week trial. The investigation settled favorably for our client after trial.
- In Re Certain HSP Modems, Software and Hardware Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 337- TA-439 (2000). Represented complainant PCTel in patent infringement investigation involving telecommunication modems, filed against ESS. Acted as lead counsel in a three week trial. The ALJ ruled that ESS infringed PCTel's patent. After trial, the investigation settled favorably for our client.
- In Re Certain Semiconductor Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-414 (1998). Represented respondent Mosel Vitelic Corporation in a patent investigation brought by Micron Technology with respect to six semiconductor process patents. Acted as lead counsel in a four week trial. Micron withdrew three patents prior to trial and after trial, the ALJ found that all three remaining patents were not infringed, invalid over prior art, unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and lacking a domestic industry (a so-called “grand slam” defense victory). Thereafter, the investigation was settled.
- In Re Certain Catalyst Components and Catalysts For The Polymerization of Olefins, 337-TA-307 (1989). Represented respondent Toho Titanium in patent infringement investigation brought by Montedison and Himont. The investigation settled favorably for Toho shortly before trial.
- Trial counsel in the ITC for numerous other parties settled before trial.
Extensive trial experience in federal district courts, including experience in the district courts in California, the district court of Delaware and the district courts of Texas:
- Trial counsel for ZTE Corporation in a case brought by TFT in the Eastern District of Texas (2015). Following a favorable Markman ruling, the case was favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel in numerous patent cases for Centrify Software, including cases brought by ORG Structures and SoftVault. (E. D. Texas and N. D. CA, 2012 -15). Cases favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel in numerous patent cases for Corsair Components, including cases brought by Better Mouse, Data Carriers, EDigital, Novocrypt (E. D. Texas and N. D. CA, 2013 -15 ). Cases favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel for LendingTree brought against Zillow and others. (W. D. North Carolina, 2012-15).
- Trial counsel for LendingTree brought by Internet Patent Corporation ( N. D. CA, 2012 -15). Summary judgment granted for LendingTree and upheld by the Federal Circuit.
- Trial counsel for Lotes in patent case brought by Hon Hai Corporation ( N. D. CA, 2012 -15). Case favorably settled shortly before trial.
- Trial counsel for Nextec in patent case against Brookwood (S. D. NY, 2012). Case favorably resolved after trial.
- Trial counsel for Walmart in cases brought by Round Rock and JC Trading. (D. Del. 2013 -2014). Cases favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel for Centrify Software in patent litigation against Quest Software (N. D. CA, and D. Utah, 2011). Cases favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel for STMicroelectronics in Breach of Contract and Unfair Business Practice by STMicroelectronics against Eli Harari (2009). Case favorably settled shortly before trial.
- Trial counsel for Cordis and Johnson and Johnson brought by Target and Boston Scientific in the Northern District of CA. (2008). Case favorably settled shortly before trial.
- Trial counsel for ST Microelectronics in a patent case brought by BenQ America in the Northern District of CA. (2005). Case successfully dismissed on motion.
- Trial counsel for STMicroelectronics in a patent and antitrust Case for STMicroelectronics filed by SanDisk (2005). Case favorably settled.
- Trial counsel for Nanometrics in a case brought by KLA/Tencor in the Northern District of CA. (2005). Case favorably settled.
- Trial counsel for ATT in a trade secret case brought by Excite/At Home in the Northern District of CA. (2004). Case favorably settled.
- Trial counsel for Microsoft in a patent case brought by Burst in the Northern District of CA. (2003). Case favorably settled.
- Trial counsel for Mosel Vitelic in patent litigation against Micron in District of Delaware (2000). Extensive press reports that the case was settled favorably for Mosel on the first day of trial.
- Trial counsel for Samsung in patent litigation brought against Northern Telecom in the Northern District of CA. (1998). Case favorably settled before trial.
- Trial counsel for Samsung in patent litigation brought by Northern Telecom in the Northern District of CA. (1997). Case favorably settled before trial.
- Trial counsel for QuickLogic in patent litigation brought by Actel the Northern District of CA. (1996). Settled favorably before trial.
- Trial counsel for Digital Instruments against Topometrix in patent litigation in the Northern District of CA. (1994). Favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel for Uniphase in patent litigation brought by Spectra Physics the Northern District of CA. (1993). Settled favorably two weeks before trial.
- Trial counsel for NexGen in patent dispute with Intel (N. D. Cal. 1992). Matter favorably settled.
- Trial counsel for Alameda Instruments in patent litigation brought by Athens Corp. in the Northern District of CA. (1989). Settled favorably after trial.
Extensive trial experience in patent, trademark, trade secret and antitrust cases over a 40-year period:
- Benson, et al. v. Chevron (Antitrust)
- DeLaveaga v. Chevron (Antitrust)
- Etec Systems v. Ateq (Patent)
- Mobil/Philips/Chevron v. Arco/Exxon/Sohio (Contract)
- Motorola v. PCTel (Patent)
- Novadyne v. Tandem (Antitrust)
- Rayteck v. Omega (Patent)
- Spectra Physics v. Uniphase (Patent)
- Townsend v. PCTEL (Patent)
- Unitrode v. Pioneer (Patent)
- VE Corp. v. Esco (Alleged Unfair Business Practices)
Credentials
Service / Recognition
Overview
Ed Anderson is an intellectual property law trailblazer with deep roots in the Silicon Valley legal community. As one of the first generation of lead IP trial lawyers in the Silicon Valley, Ed has litigated some of the historic IP cases in the Silicon Valley and the US International Trade Commission (ITC). He leverages his four decades of litigation and jury trial experience to successfully guide clients before federal, state, and appellate courts and particularly before the ITC.
A leading authority on the ITC, Ed has represented clients in over a dozen investigations through or shortly before trial, including successfully trying two ITC cases during a single summer. Beyond the ITC, he has served as lead trial counsel and tried cases in numerous matters before the federal courts nationwide, California state courts, and as appellate counsel before the Federal and Ninth Circuits. Ed also has extensive mediation and arbitration experience, as a representative and as an arbitrator and mediator.
National and international clients in the computer, consumer electronics, medical device, semiconductor, software, telecommunications, and pharmaceutical industries turn to Ed for counsel, and he advises a wide range of major and emerging technology companies in managing their intellectual property portfolios.
The legal industry, globally and regionally, has honored Ed for his work. His accolades include being named one of Silicon Valley’s top 300 lawyers, recognized in numerous editions of Best Lawyers and Super Lawyers in Intellectual Property, and for multiple years as one of the Daily Journal's leading IP litigators in California. The International Legal 500 guide recognized him as among the best-known ITC practitioners.
In line with Jenner & Block’s values, Ed has a long history of pro bono and community service. As a young lawyer, he undertook numerous pro bono matters for the ACLU and the Silicon Valley Law Foundation, the largest provider of pro bono legal services in the region. He served on the organization’s board for more than 20 years. In the community, Ed has served on the boards of several educational and neighborhood institutions.
Ed also has played a critical role in the establishment, leadership, and growth of intellectual property law practices since the earliest days of the Silicon Valley. Ed has served as the founder of offices and practice groups of AM Law 100 firms, the managing partner of AM Law 100 offices and practice groups and as the managing partner and chairman of the then-largest IP firm in the Silicon Valley and one of the country’s largest IP boutique law firms.
A ‘responsive, smart, and an excellent attorney.’
International Legal 500
Areas of Focus
Representative Matters
Extensive trial experience in the International Trade Commission:
- In Re Certain LTE and 3G Compliant Cellular communication Devices, 337-TA-1138. Represented HTC. Prevailed at trial and before the Federal Circuit.
- In Re Earpiece Devices Having Positioning and Retaining Structure and Components Thereof, 337-TA-912 (2014). Represented Monster in an ITC case filed by Bose concerning headphones. Favorably settled two weeks before trial.
- In Re Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-855 (2012). Represented Monster in an ITC case filed by Hitachi concerning headphones. Favorably settled three weeks before trial.
- In Re Integrated Solar Power Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-811 (2011). Represented Canadian Solar in an ITC case filed by Westinghouse Solar, Inc. concerning solar panels. Favorably settled before trial.
- In Re Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same Investigation, 337-TA-605 (2007). Represented respondent STMicroelectronics N.V. The complainant, Tessera Technologies, Inc., asserted two patents against ST NV and other respondents Qualcomm, Motorola, Freescale, AMD and Spansion. Acted as lead counsel for all respondents at a three week trial. The ALJ ruled that the respondents did not infringe the asserted patents. Subsequently the Commission reversed the ALJ's determination but, after remand, no exclusion order was entered. The matter was later settled.
- In Re Certain Programmable Logic Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-453 (2001). Represented respondent Xilinx in an investigation by Altera involving patents relating to programmable logic device semiconductor chips. The investigation settled favorably for our client prior to trial.
- In Re Certain Field Programmable Gate Arrays and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-441 (2000). Represented complainant Xilinx in patent infringement investigation against Altera involving semiconductor circuit patents, asserting three patents on field programmable gate arrays. Acted as lead counsel in a three week trial. The investigation settled favorably for our client after trial.
- In Re Certain HSP Modems, Software and Hardware Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 337- TA-439 (2000). Represented complainant PCTel in patent infringement investigation involving telecommunication modems, filed against ESS. Acted as lead counsel in a three week trial. The ALJ ruled that ESS infringed PCTel's patent. After trial, the investigation settled favorably for our client.
- In Re Certain Semiconductor Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-414 (1998). Represented respondent Mosel Vitelic Corporation in a patent investigation brought by Micron Technology with respect to six semiconductor process patents. Acted as lead counsel in a four week trial. Micron withdrew three patents prior to trial and after trial, the ALJ found that all three remaining patents were not infringed, invalid over prior art, unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and lacking a domestic industry (a so-called “grand slam” defense victory). Thereafter, the investigation was settled.
- In Re Certain Catalyst Components and Catalysts For The Polymerization of Olefins, 337-TA-307 (1989). Represented respondent Toho Titanium in patent infringement investigation brought by Montedison and Himont. The investigation settled favorably for Toho shortly before trial.
- Trial counsel in the ITC for numerous other parties settled before trial.
Extensive trial experience in federal district courts, including experience in the district courts in California, the district court of Delaware and the district courts of Texas:
- Trial counsel for ZTE Corporation in a case brought by TFT in the Eastern District of Texas (2015). Following a favorable Markman ruling, the case was favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel in numerous patent cases for Centrify Software, including cases brought by ORG Structures and SoftVault. (E. D. Texas and N. D. CA, 2012 -15). Cases favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel in numerous patent cases for Corsair Components, including cases brought by Better Mouse, Data Carriers, EDigital, Novocrypt (E. D. Texas and N. D. CA, 2013 -15 ). Cases favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel for LendingTree brought against Zillow and others. (W. D. North Carolina, 2012-15).
- Trial counsel for LendingTree brought by Internet Patent Corporation ( N. D. CA, 2012 -15). Summary judgment granted for LendingTree and upheld by the Federal Circuit.
- Trial counsel for Lotes in patent case brought by Hon Hai Corporation ( N. D. CA, 2012 -15). Case favorably settled shortly before trial.
- Trial counsel for Nextec in patent case against Brookwood (S. D. NY, 2012). Case favorably resolved after trial.
- Trial counsel for Walmart in cases brought by Round Rock and JC Trading. (D. Del. 2013 -2014). Cases favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel for Centrify Software in patent litigation against Quest Software (N. D. CA, and D. Utah, 2011). Cases favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel for STMicroelectronics in Breach of Contract and Unfair Business Practice by STMicroelectronics against Eli Harari (2009). Case favorably settled shortly before trial.
- Trial counsel for Cordis and Johnson and Johnson brought by Target and Boston Scientific in the Northern District of CA. (2008). Case favorably settled shortly before trial.
- Trial counsel for ST Microelectronics in a patent case brought by BenQ America in the Northern District of CA. (2005). Case successfully dismissed on motion.
- Trial counsel for STMicroelectronics in a patent and antitrust Case for STMicroelectronics filed by SanDisk (2005). Case favorably settled.
- Trial counsel for Nanometrics in a case brought by KLA/Tencor in the Northern District of CA. (2005). Case favorably settled.
- Trial counsel for ATT in a trade secret case brought by Excite/At Home in the Northern District of CA. (2004). Case favorably settled.
- Trial counsel for Microsoft in a patent case brought by Burst in the Northern District of CA. (2003). Case favorably settled.
- Trial counsel for Mosel Vitelic in patent litigation against Micron in District of Delaware (2000). Extensive press reports that the case was settled favorably for Mosel on the first day of trial.
- Trial counsel for Samsung in patent litigation brought against Northern Telecom in the Northern District of CA. (1998). Case favorably settled before trial.
- Trial counsel for Samsung in patent litigation brought by Northern Telecom in the Northern District of CA. (1997). Case favorably settled before trial.
- Trial counsel for QuickLogic in patent litigation brought by Actel the Northern District of CA. (1996). Settled favorably before trial.
- Trial counsel for Digital Instruments against Topometrix in patent litigation in the Northern District of CA. (1994). Favorably resolved.
- Trial counsel for Uniphase in patent litigation brought by Spectra Physics the Northern District of CA. (1993). Settled favorably two weeks before trial.
- Trial counsel for NexGen in patent dispute with Intel (N. D. Cal. 1992). Matter favorably settled.
- Trial counsel for Alameda Instruments in patent litigation brought by Athens Corp. in the Northern District of CA. (1989). Settled favorably after trial.
Extensive trial experience in patent, trademark, trade secret and antitrust cases over a 40-year period:
- Benson, et al. v. Chevron (Antitrust)
- DeLaveaga v. Chevron (Antitrust)
- Etec Systems v. Ateq (Patent)
- Mobil/Philips/Chevron v. Arco/Exxon/Sohio (Contract)
- Motorola v. PCTel (Patent)
- Novadyne v. Tandem (Antitrust)
- Rayteck v. Omega (Patent)
- Spectra Physics v. Uniphase (Patent)
- Townsend v. PCTEL (Patent)
- Unitrode v. Pioneer (Patent)
- VE Corp. v. Esco (Alleged Unfair Business Practices)
Credentials
Admissions
- California
Education
- Stanford Law School, JD, Editor, Stanford Law Review, 1978
- Stanford University, AB, with honors, with distinction, Phi Beta Kappa , 1975
Court Admissions
- US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
- US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
- US District Court, Central District of California
- US District Court, Eastern District of California
- US District Court, Northern District of California
- US District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Service / Recognition
Awards
- Best Lawyers in America, Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2011-2026
- Northern California Super Lawyers, 2009-2024
- Daily Journal, Top Intellectual Property Lawyers in California, 2008-2009
Community
- Western Neighborhoods and Open SF History, Board Member, 2012-present
- Silicon Valley Law Foundation, Board Member, 1994-2020
- San Francisco Beautiful, Board Member, 2010-2019
- Stanford Law School Board of Visitors, Board Member, 2007-2014
- Saint Francis Wood Homeowners Association, Board Member, 2004-2012
- Hamlin School for Girls, Board Member and Vice President, 1998-2005
- Lick-Wilmerding High School, Board Member and President, 1983-1998
Industry
- American Arbitration Association, Special Master and Mediator
- The IP Litigator, Former Editor
- Antitrust Law Developments, Former Editor
- Practices and Case Studies of U.S. Section 337 Investigations, Co-Author