Joshua L. Raskin

Joshua L. Raskin

Shareholder

Joshua L. Raskin is a registered patent attorney who focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation with an emphasis on patent litigation. He has litigated numerous cases in federal courts across the country and argued before the Courts of Appeals for the Federal and Second Circuits. He has represented clients at the trial and appellate stages in a broad range of industries, including electronics, liquid crystal display (LCD) panels, computer technology, mobile handsets, Internet Protocol Television and finance.

His experience is broad and varied having represented both defendants and plaintiffs. Prior to joining the firm, Josh was the head of the patent litigation practice at a prominent New York plaintiffs’ firm where he oversaw numerous complex patent cases. Before that, Josh was a partner and co-head of the patent litigation practice at a national firm where he represented both plaintiffs and defendants in cases involving all areas of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks and copyrights.

Josh’s practice also includes advising hedge funds in connection with patent litigation in which the funds’ portfolio companies have an interest, as well as advising technology companies on issues relating to patent prosecution.

Concentrations

  • Patent infringement
  • Trademark infringement
  • Technology
Read More +

Capabilities

Experience


  • Blazer v. eBay, Inc., 1:15-cv-01059 (N.D. Ala.) – Represented eBay, Inc. in a patent litigation relating to wooden carpenter bee traps being sold on the eBay.com web site by third party users of the site. The Court granted summary judgment for eBay on claims of direct, inducement and contributory patent infringement.
  • CAO Group, Inc. v. Biolase Technology, Inc. – Representing Biolase in patent litigation regarding laser-driven medical device in the District of Utah. Virtually all of the claims, including all asserted claims, were invalidated in an inter partes reexamination, which was recently affirmed by the Federal Circuit following oral argument presented by Josh.
  • CryptoPeak Solutions, LLC v. 3M Company, 15-cv-1284 (E.D. Tex) – Representing 3M in patent litigation regarding encryption technologies.
  • American Needle, Inc. v. CafePress Inc., 15-cv-03968 (N.D. Ill.) – Representing CafePress in patent litigation regarding graphical user interface technology.
  • FlatWorld Interactives LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, et al., 12-cv-00804 (D. Del.) – Represented the defendant in patent litigation regarding software for removing images from a touch screen.
  • B.E. Technology v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., 12-cv-02825 (W.D. Tenn.) – Representing the defendant in patent litigation regarding technology for storing user profiles and user libraries of files on servers and accessing them on a client device.
  • Ruby Sands LLC v. Fidelity Investments, 15-cv-01985 (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Fidelity in patent litigation regarding mobile check depositing technology.
  • Guyzar LLC v. Ebates, Inc., 15-cv-02000 (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Ebates in patent litigation regarding Internet third party login technologies.
  • USB Technologies, LLC v. eBay Inc., et al., 2:15-cv-04836 (C.D. Cal.) - Represented eBay in patent litigation regarding lighting to USB flash drive products.
  • Carson Optical, Inc. v. eBay Inc., 2:2015-cv-03793 (E.D.N.Y.) – Representing eBay in patent litigation regarding head magnifying glasses and head belts for head magnifying glasses.
  • Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 14-cv-883 (E.D. Tex.) – Represented the defendant in patent litigation regarding technology for two-way wireless communications, including methods and devices for processing data messages between a mobile unit and a network operations center, delivery notification technology.
  • Blue Spike, LLC v. 3M Cogent, Inc., 12-cv-499 (E.D. Tex.) – Represented the defendant in patent litigation regarding digital watermarking technology.
  • Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, 13-cv-00259 (E.D. Tex.) - Represented the defendant in patent litigation regarding technology for two-way wireless communications, including methods and devices for processing data messages between a mobile unit and a network operations center.
  • IpLearn, LLC v. Blackboard Inc., 11-cv-00876 (D. Del.) – Represented the defendant in patent litigation regarding computer-aided learning systems.
  • Cellport Systems, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., 13-cv-00180 (D. Colo.) – Represented defendant in patent litigation regarding technology for selecting one of a plurality of communication channels over which to transmit data using a wireless device.
  • Data Speed Technology, LLC v. Blackboard Inc., 13-cv-1445 (D. Del. 2013) – Represented the defendant in patent litigation regarding computer information storage systems.
  • Eclipse IP LLC v. CafePress, Inc., 13-cv-01711 (D. Del. 2013) – Represented the defendant in a patent litigation regarding electronic messaging, notification and authentication systems.
  • Bluebonnet Telecommunications LLC v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., et al., 12-cv-504 (E.D. Tex.) – Represented the defendants in a patent litigation regarding mobile device features allowing a user to determine whether certain telephony features are active, deactivate certain features and silence the ringer.
  • Cinsay, Inc. v. Liveclicker, Inc., 13-cv-04126 (N.D. Tex.) – Represented the defendant in a patent litigation regarding interactive text/advertisement overlays over videos.
  • Express Card Systems LLC v. CafePress Inc., 13-cv-137 (E.D. Tex. 2013); Express Card Systems LLC v. Target Corp., 13-cv-00020 (E.D. Tex. 2013) – Represented the defendants in patent litigation regarding systems for creating customized greeting cards.
  • ORG Structure Innovations, LLC v. Fischer International Identity, LLC, 12-cv-01464-SLR (D. Del. 2013) – Represented the defendant in patent litigation regarding computer software.
  • Leveraged Innovations, LLC. v. NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., et al., 11-CV-3203 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) - Represented the plaintiff in patent litigation relating to computer systems for creating and exchanging of shares of leveraged exchange-traded funds.
  • Anvik Corporation v. Nikon Precision, Inc., et al., 05-CV-7891 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) – Represented the plaintiff in patent litigation relating to lithography methods used to expose glass panels used in the fabrication of LCD panels.
  • Williamson, on Behalf of and as Trustee for At Home Bondholders’ Liquidating Trust v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., 11-CV-04948 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) – Represented the plaintiff in patent litigation relating to internet protocol television systems.
  • Xpoint Technologies, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, et al., 09-CV-0026 (D. Del. 2011). – Represented the plaintiff in patent litigation relating to computer backup and restore technology.
  • Xpoint Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al., 09-CV-0628 (D. Del. 2009) – Represented the plaintiff in patent litigation relating to Peer I/O technology.
  • IGT v. Las Vegas Gaming, Inc., 07-cv-00415 (D. Nev. 2008) - Represented the defendant in a complex copyright/trademark infringement case concerning audiovisual display of electronic gaming machines.
  • Regal Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse, Inc. et al., 03-cv-01296 (N.D. Cal. 2007) – Won a judgment of non-infringement on behalf of the defendant manufacturer of high speed data connectors which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
  • Laclede Professional Products Inc. v. Sultan Dental Products, Ltd., 98-cv-981 (C.D. Cal.), – Won a jury trial on behalf of the defendant in a patent infringement case involving dental fluoride foams.

°Certain of the above representations were handled by Mr. Raskin prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Recognition & Leadership

  • Listed, Managing IP Magazine's World IP Handbook and Survey, "IP Stars," 2014-2017
  • Listed, IAM magazine, "IAM Patent 1000," Litigation, 2014-2017

Credentials

Education
  • J.D., Brooklyn Law School, 1996
  • B.S.E., Industrial Engineering, University of Michigan, 1993
Admissions
  • New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office