Jim Barabas

Partner

contact

650.825.4300 X131

jbarabas@kramerday.com

 

Jim has significant experience litigating patent cases on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants across various technologies. In the electrical engineering and computer science area, these cases have concerned, among other products, redirection software, laptop computers, and mobile phones. In the biotech area, these cases have involved DNA microarrays, labeling reagents, and immunochemical detection systems. Jim also has successfully represented clients in many Hatch Waxman cases.

Jim’s practice is international in scope. He has litigated in courts across the country, and in international arbitrations in Switzerland and Germany. He has significant experience in popular patent forums, including Delaware, New Jersey, the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Wisconsin, the Northern District of California, the District of Nevada, the ITC, and the PTAB.

In the transactional area, Jim’s experience includes advising investment banks, private equity firms, and corporations on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions. As part of this transactional work, he has reviewed patent portfolios as well as outstanding patent litigations and other intellectual property in connection with mergers and acquisitions.

Jim has over 20 years of experience in patent litigation and is admitted to the Patent Bar. Prior to joining Kramer Day, Jim worked at firms including WilmerHale and Latham & Watkins as a patent litigator.

significant matters
Almirall, LLC v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (D.Delaware)  Mr. Barabas represented Torrent Pharmaceuticals in an ANDA litigation. The Court granted Torrent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on noninfringement on the grounds of argument-based estoppel. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133180 (July 13, 2021).
Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Slayback Pharmaceuticals, LLC (D.Delaware) Mr. Barabas represented Slayback Pharmaceuticals in an ANDA litigation. The Court granted Slayback’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on noninfringement on the grounds of disclosure-dedication. 382 F.Supp.3d 341 (May 9, 2019). The Federal Circuit upheld this decision on appeal. 958 F.3d 1171 (May 8, 2020).
Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Nevada)  Mr. Barabas represented Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories in an ANDA litigation at trial, in which he performed the direct examination of an expert. Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s prevailed at trial and on appeal on the grounds of obviousness, and a petition for writ of certiorari was denied. Mr. Barabas also successfully argued before the Federal Circuit, which upheld the district court’s denial of intervention by the EPA Drug Initiative II.
In Re Bendamustine Consolidated Cases (D. Delaware) Mr. Barabas represented Dr. Reddy’s in this ANDA litigation, in which the Court dismissed certain patents from the case based on a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds of disclosure-dedication. The case settled on favorable terms.
Financeware, Inc. v. UBS Financial Services (S.D. New York) Mr. Barabas represented UBS Financial Services in this litigation involving financial modeling systems. The case settled on favorable terms.
Joby Photo Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (N.D. Cal.)  Mr. Barabas represented Joby Photo in this litigation involving camera tripods.
In the Matter of Certain Electronic Products, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players and Computers, International Trade Commission Inv. No. 337-TA-701. Mr. Barabas represented Apple in an ITC investigation brought by Nokia alleging infringement of seven patents.
Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc. (E.D. Texas)  Mr. Barabas represented Cisco Systems in this case involving redirection technology.
Roche Diagnostics GmbH v. Enzo Biochem Inc. / Enzo Life Sciences v. Affymetrix, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) Mr. Barabas represented Roche and Affymetrix in these patent litigations involving DNA microarrays, labeling reagents, and immunochemical detection systems. He took and defended significant depositions, and the cases settled on favorable terms.
Freeman v. Gerber and Playtex (D. Kansas) Mr. Barabas represented Playtex in this patent litigation involving sippy cups, and deposed the inventors. After prevailing on a disputed claim construction, Playtex filed a successful motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court’s decision was upheld on appeal.
education
Juris Doctor, University of Pennsylvania Law School

AB, Chemistry, Dartmouth College
admissions
Southern District of New York
Eastern District of New York
District of New Jersey
Western District of Wisconsin
Federal Circuit
Registered to practice before the USPTO
venue experience
N.D. California
C.D. California
E.D. Texas
International Trade Commission
New Jersey
Delaware
Western District of Wisconsin
Nevada