Allan W. Jansen

Of Counsel

With decades of experience in intellectual property law, Allan is a seasoned litigator who has successfully represented clients in high-stakes cases across a wide range of industries. From biotechnology and semiconductors to medical devices and cellular communication technologies, Allan has built a reputation for his ability to tackle complex IP disputes. His intellectual property practice is centered on patent litigation, trade secrets disputes, and cases involving intellectual property licensing, often appearing before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and in federal courts nationwide.  Over the past decade, Allan has expanded hi practice to include several Antitrust and Unfair Competition matters, including practices that involve the licensing of Standard Essential Patents and Search technologies.
 
Throughout his career, Allan has been at the forefront of significant litigation, handling groundbreaking cases involving cutting-edge technologies. His litigation portfolio includes disputes over transgenic plants, genetic probes, semiconductor designs, and cellular communication technologies. Notably, he has represented leading global companies in trials involving patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and complex commercial disputes. Allan’s ability to navigate technically intricate matters has made him a go-to advisor and litigator for innovative businesses.
 
In addition to his courtroom success, Allan excels in providing strategic counsel to clients, ensuring their intellectual property rights align with broader business objectives. His extensive experience spans jury trials, arbitration, and administrative proceedings, including ITC investigations. By developing tailored litigation strategies, Allan has consistently achieved favorable outcomes for his clients, protecting their innovations and competitive advantages in the marketplace.
 
Beyond litigation, Allan frequently shares his expertise as a lecturer and panelist, contributing to discussions on intellectual property law and strategies for protecting emerging technologies. He has spoken at events hosted by the U.S. Small Business Administration, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and other professional organizations. Allan’s dedication to advancing understanding in IP law reflects his passion for supporting innovation and protecting the rights of inventors and businesses.
  • B.S., Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, with a specialization in physics and electrical engineering, and a minor in material sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL.
  • Graduate studies in Computer Science and Mathematics, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL. Graduate studies in Biophysics, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
  • Completed studies at the Institute of International and Comparative Law, University of San Diego School of Law, Paris, FR.
  • J.D., John Marshall, Chicago, IL. Associate Editor, Law Review
    • Citation of excellence for scholastic achievement in legal research and writing
    • Attended full time night school while working full time as a product manager for Unisys

Court Admissions

  • California Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Central, and Eastern Districts of California

Administrative Agency Admissions

  • United States Patent and Trademark Office

Lecturer, United States Small Business Administration

Lecturer. National Association of Corporate Counsel

Frequent lecturer to Business and Venture Capital Groups in all areas of intellectual property, including the development of global business strategies involving intangible property rights

Panelist, ACCA Seminar “Patent Strategies for the New Millennium”

Panelist, OCVG Seminar “The Supreme Court Finally has Shown Interest in Patent Law”

Panelist, AIPLA Seminar “Valuing Patent Rights in Emerging Technologies”

Panelist, SABPA General Counsel Conference “Effective Management of IP Assets”

Biotechnology

Perkin-Elmer v. Amersham, et al. and Amersham v. Perkin-Elmer, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California. Representation of Amersham in patent infringement cases involving DNA sequencing equipment.

University of California v. GenProbe and Center for Neurological Studies v. GenProbe, U.S.D.C., Southern District of California (jury trial). Representation of GenProbe in patent infringement cases involving genetic probes.

GenProbe v. Amoco, U.S.D.C., Southern District of California. Representation of GenProbe in patent infringement case involving genetic probes.

Mycogen v. Monsanto, Mycogen v. Monsanto II, and Monsanto v. Mycogen, U.S.D.C., District of Delaware Uury trials). Representation of Mycogen in patent infringement cases involving transgenic plants.

DeKalb v. Mycogen, U.S.D.C., Northern District of Illinois. Representation of Mycogen in patent infringement case involving transformation processes for the development of transgenic plants.

Enzo Corporation v. Ca/gene Corporation, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California. Representation of Calgene in patent infringement case involving transgenic plants.

Electrical Arts

In the Matter of Certain Memory Devices with Increased Capacitance and Products Containing Same.

Representation of Mitsubishi in ITC proceeding.

In the Matter of Hardware Logic Emulation System and Components Thereof. Representation of Quickturn in ITC proceeding.

In Re Certain Small Aluminum Flashlights. Representation of Mag Instrument in ITC proceeding.

Mentor Graphics Corporation v. Quickturn Design Systems, Inc., U.S.D.C., Northern District of California. Representation of Quickturn in patent infringement case involving logic emulation devices.

Burroughs v. IBIS, U.S.D.C., Central District of California. Representation of IBIS in trade secret theft case involving memory storage devices.

PMC v DirecTV. U.S.D.C., District of Delaware. Representation of DirecTV in patent infringement case involving satellite broadcast technology.

Semiconductors

fntersil v. Maxim, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California. Representation of Maxim in trade secret theft case involving semiconductor design.

Alcatel v. Xylan, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California. Representation of Xylan in patent infringement/ trade secret theft case involving semiconductor design.

Lumileds V. Epistar, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California. Representation of Epistar in patent infringement case involving LED design.

Intel v. Seeq, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California. Representation of Seeq in patent infringement/trade secret theft case involving semiconductor design.

Seeq v. Atmel, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California. Representation of Seeq in trade secret theft case involving semiconductor design.

Medical Devices

SciMed Medical Systems, Inc. v. CVIS, Inc. (arbitration). Representation of CVIS in contract action involving cardiovascular imaging technology.

Baxter v. Spectramed, U.S.D.C., Central District of California (jury trial). Representation of Spectramed in patent infringement case involving medical calibration technology.

GS/ v. Origin, U.S.D.C., Northern District of California (jury trial). Representation of Origin in patent infringement case involving endoscopic surgical devices.

Johnson & Johnson v. Medtronic, U.S.D.C., Central District of California. Representation of Johnson & Johnson in patent infringement case involving spinal support devices.

Phillips, et al. v. Freedom Technologies, U.S.D.C., Central District of California. Representation of Phillips in patent infringement case involving prosthetic devices.

Safety Syringes v. Plastef, U.S.D.C. Central District of California. Representation of Safety Syringes in patent infringement case involving syringe technology.

Coo/touch v. VNUS, U.S.D.C. Southern District of California. Representation of Cooltouch in patent infringement case involving vein therapy.

Spinal Kinetics v. Synthes, U.S.D.C. Northern District of California Uury trial). Representation of Spinal Kinetics in patent infringement case involving disc replacement devices.

Mechanical Arts

Mag Instrument v. Brinkmann, U.S.D.C., Northern District of Texas (jury trial). Representation of Mag Instrument in patent infringement/trademark case involving lighting devices.

Mag Instrument v. Streamlight I, U.S.D.C., Central District of California. Representation of Mag Instrument in patent infringement/trademark case involving lighting devices.

Mag Instrument v. Streamlight II, U.S.D.C., Central District of California (jury trial). Representation of Mag Instrument in breach of contract case involving lighting devices.

Kassnarv. Mag Instrument, U.S.D.C., Central District of California. Representation of Mag Instrument in patent infringement case involving lighting devices.

Leonard Studio v. Desisti, U.S.D.C., District of New Jersey (jury trial). Representation of Leonard Studio in patent infringement case involving film equipment.

Panavision v. Ultra vision, U.S.D.C., Central District of California Uury trial). Representation of Panavision in patent infringement case involving film equipment.

Zeiss Medical v. Xoft, U.S.D.C. Central District of California. Representation of Xoft in patent infringement case involving optical equipment.

CTS v. Ulltimax, U.S.D.C. Southern District of California. Representation of CTS in patent infringement case involving cement products and processes.

Utility Trailer v. Aztec, U.S.D.C., Northern District of Texas (jury trial). Representation of Utility Trailer in patent infringement case involving vehicle design.

Levi Strauss & Co. v. Golden Trade, U.S.D.C., District of Delaware. Representation of Levi Strauss in patent infringement case involving fabric finishing technology.

Standard Essential Patents and Cellular Communication Technologies

TCL v. Ericsson, U.S.D.C. Central District of California. Representation of TCL in contract action involving SEP portfolio licensing.

Ericsson v. TCL, U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Texas. Representation of TCL in patent infringement case involving implementation patents for cellular technologies.

Continental v. Avanci, Northern District of Texas. Representation of Continental Automotive in SEP Patent Pool licensing litigation.

Back to top