Jon T. Tanaka
Jon Tanaka joined Ropes & Gray's intellectual property litigation group in 2017. He specializes in life sciences IP, such as small molecule pharmaceuticals, biologics, molecular diagnostics, immunotherapies, and other biotechnology tools, but has worked across a wide spectrum of technologies, including consumer products and medical devices. He has experience in patent litigation from the pre-litigation investigation stage through post-trial and appellate proceedings. He has worked on cases across multiple venues, including district court, the Federal Circuit, the PTAB, and the ITC.
In addition to his patent litigation practice, he has experience in supporting deals by analyzing litigation risk, assessing the strength of patent portfolios, and conducting freedom-to-operate analyses. He also works on litigation and advisory matters relating to trademarks, false advertising, and unfair competition.
Jon received his law degree from Berkeley School of Law, where he was a senior editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, a publishing editor of the California Law Review, and co-editor-in-chief of the Asian American Law Journal. During law school, Jon served as a judicial intern for the Patent Pilot Program of the Central District of California.
Jon earned his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Berkeley, with a major in Molecular and Cell Biology, Biochemistry.
- Representing a global pharmaceutical company in a pre-litigation investigation concerning multiple biologics patents under the BPCIA.
- Ragner Technology Corp. et al. v. National Express / Telebrands (D.N.J.) – Representing patent owner Ragner Technology Corp. and exclusive licensee Tristar Products, Inc. in a set of competitor cases, asserting patents covering expandable garden hoses and methods of use, as well as false advertising and unfair competition claims.
- Canon, Inc. v. TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented TCL in a five-patent suit relating to smart TV functionality and interfaces.
- Certain Clidinium Bromide and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1109) – Represented A Major Pharmaceutical Company in a non-patent Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission involving claims of unfair competition and false advertising of FDA approval by manufacturers and sellers of unauthorized generic versions of a branded drug used to treat gastrointestinal disorders. The investigation was the first to proceed to an early evidentiary hearing under the issues of both domestic industry and injury.
- Natera, Inc. v. ArcherDX, Inc. (D. Del.): Represented ArcherDX in patent infringement litigations filed by Natera relating to methods of amplifying and sequencing cell-free DNA in the District of Delaware.
- Co-author, “Inconsistent Statements to USPTO and FDA May Render Patents Unenforceable,” Kluwer Patent Blog (November 10, 2021)
- Co-author, “Precision Matters: Trends in Genetic Sequencing Litigation,” Ropes & Gray LLP (August 2021)
- Co-author, “Orange, Purple Book Patentees Hone PTAB Survival Skills,” Bloomberg Law’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (June 13, 2018)
- Author, Note, “'Shall' We Dance? Interpreting the BPCIA's Patent Provisions,” 31 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 659 (2016).
- JD, Order of the Coif, University of California, Berkeley School of Law, 2017; senior editor, Berkeley Technology Law Journal; editor, California Law Review; co-Editor-in-Chief, Asian American Law Journal
- BA (Biochemistry), University of California, Berkeley, 2011
Admissions / Qualifications
- New York, 2018