Source: https://www.sternekessler.com/professionals/john-christopher-jc-rozendaal
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:09:58+00:00

Document:
John Christopher “J.C.” Rozendaal, is a director and co-chair of Sterne Kessler's Trial & Appellate Practice Group. J.C. focuses his practice on representing clients in complex business and intellectual property litigation, principally in federal court, and he regularly tries patent-infringement cases to juries. He frequently briefs and argues cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has represented clients in the U.S. Supreme Court, both at the certiorari stage and on the merits.
J.C. has litigated patents on a wide variety of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, aseptic packaging systems, golf clubs, optical disc drives, medical ultrasound, Voice-over-Internet-Protocol, LCD flat-panel displays, and streaming video technology.
A growing part of J.C.'s practice includes counseling generic pharmaceutical companies on matters related to generic pharmaceuticals and biosimilars, as well as assisting international companies as they navigate the U.S. patent system. A seasoned litigator, J.C. is particularly adept at explaining complicated technical concepts to juries and judges who have no background in science or technology.
Prior to becoming a practicing attorney, J.C. served as a clerk for Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court.
J.C. earned his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law, Austin, with highest honors. He received a B.A. from Oxford University, Brasenose College, with first-class honors and a B.A. from the University of Texas, Austin, Plan II, with highest honors.
Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. (currently representing Teva Pharmaceuticals in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Restasis ophthalmic emulsion for treatment of dry eye) (E.D. Tex.) (2:15-cv-1455).
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. et al. (currently representing Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. and other defendants in litigation involving aseptic bottling systems for low-acid foods) (W.D.N.Y) (1:10-cv-781).
MiiCs & Partners America, LLC et al. v. Funai Electric Co., Ltd.vet al. (currently representing Funai Electric Co. and other defendants in litigation involving LCD flat-panel televisions) (D. Del.) (1:14-cv-804).
In re Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products Containing the Same. (represented Dell Inc. in USITC investigation involving audio processing technology in first case to reach Commission in pilot program for rapid disposition of case-dispositive issues) (USITC 2015) (Inv. No. 337-TA-949).
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc. (represented Limelight Networks in U.S. Supreme Court case involving Internet content delivery networks, resulting in 9-0 win and landmark ruling on divided infringement of method claims) (U.S. Supreme Court 2014) (U.S.; 134 S.Ct. 2111).
Wireless Ink Corp. v. Google, Inc. et al. (argued on behalf of Facebook and Google in Federal Circuit in case involving technology for managing Web sites designed to be accessed from mobile devices; successfully defended judgment of noninfringement) (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Nos. 2013-1683, 2013-1684).
Greenville Communications, L.L.C. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, (represented Verizon Wireless in obtaining favorable claim construction ruling and stipulated judgment of non-infringement in case involving wireless telephone calling features; successfully defended judgment on appeal) (D.N.J. 2012) (3:07-cv-4222) (Fed. Cir. 2013) (No. 2012-1676).
In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation (represented Teva Pharmaceuticals in jury trial of high-stakes patent infringement case involving drug for treatment of epilepsy; case settled on favorable terms two weeks into trial) (D.N.J. 2011) (MDL No. 1384).
Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (successfully represented plaintiff Ricoh in obtaining reversal on appeal of unfavorable summary judgment ruling in patent infringement case brought against Taiwanese maker of optical disc drives; on remand, obtained $14.5 million jury verdict for patentee) (Fed. Cir. 2008) (550 F.3d 1325) (W.D. Wis. 2010) (No. 06-cv-462-bbc).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.