Attorney Jonathan Baker

P: 424-268-5210
F: 424-268-5219

411 Borel Avenue, Suite 310
San Mateo, CA 94402

Home » Our Team » Jonathan D. Baker

Jonathan D. Baker

Jonathan Baker is a shareholder in the Silicon Valley office of Farney Daniels PC.  Mr. Baker has nearly 20 years of experience litigating patent cases.  He has served as lead counsel in trials before the U.S. International Trade Commission, in district court cases throughout the country, in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and in inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Mr. Baker has represented numerous leading technology companies and individual inventors in developing and implementing patent monetization strategies, as well as in defending against patent infringement claims.  He has litigated cases in diverse technologies, including computer hardware and software, wireless communications, semiconductors, analog circuitry and financial trading systems.

Mr. Baker has been recognized for his exceptional work in the field of patent litigation by various industry publications including SuperLawyers and the National Law Journal.

Mr. Baker graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School.  He also holds a B.S. summa cum laude in electrical engineering from the University of Maryland, and an M.S. in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  After law school, Mr. Baker clerked for the Hon. Alvin A. Schall on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Areas of Practice

Intellectual Property Litigation
Business Litigation
Patent Monetization

Representative Cases

Lead counsel for Creative Technology, Ltd. against Samsung, HTC, LG and others in U.S. International Trade Commission case and Federal Circuit appeal related to graphical user interfaces for portable media players.  Also representing Creative in related inter partes review proceedings in the USPTO.  In the Matter of Certain Portable Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-994 (U.S. International Trade Commission)

Lead counsel for Memory Integrity in cases against Intel, Apple, Samsung, and others for infringement of patents related to processor cache coherency.  Also representing Memory Integrity in related Inter Partes Review proceedings in the USPTO.  Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp. (D. Or.); Memory Integrity, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (D. Del.)

Lead counsel for Creative Labs in U.S. International Trade Commission case related to Bluetooth headsets.  In the Matter of Certain Wireless Headsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-943 (U.S. International Trade Commission)

Representing Novo Transforma Technologies in cases against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and others for infringement of patents related to MMS messaging technology.  Also, representing Novo Transforma in related Inter Partes Review proceedings in the USPTO.  Novo Transforma Technologies, LLC (D. Del.)

Representing RecogniCorp in patent infringement case against Nintendo related to generation, storage, and display of Mii characters.  RecogniCorp. LLC v. Nintendo (D. Wash.)

Representing Innovative Wireless Solutions in multi-district patent infringement cases against various Wi-Fi router and access point manufacturers including Cisco and Ruckus.  Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC (W.D. Tex.), (D. Del.), (C.D. Cal.)

Represented Efficiency Systems in patent infringement suits against IBM, Dell, Cisco, and Oracle related to power management for computer servers.  Efficiency Systems, LLC (D. Del.)

Represented Amkor in U.S. International Trade Commission and district court litigation against Carsem for infringement of Amkor patents related to semiconductor chip packaging technology. In the Matter of Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-501 (U.S. International Trade Commission); Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Carsem (Northern District of California)

Represented Brandywine in various patent infringement lawsuits related to office phone systems. Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC  v. Toshiba (Central District of California)

Representing Advanced Dynamic Interfaces in lawsuits against various defendants related to patents for automatic generation of graphical user interfaces, including Oracle,, and Microsoft. Advanced Dynamic Interfaces (District of Delaware)

Representing Advanced Optical Tracking in lawsuits against various defendants related to BD-R and BD-RE optical discs. Advanced Optical Tracking (District of Delaware)

Represented Bandwidth Management Innovations in lawsuit against Verizon related to network management technology. Bandwidth Management Innovations v. Cellco (District of Delaware)

Represented Creative Labs in patent lawsuit involving computer interface adapters. Acticon Technologies LLC v. Creative Labs, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas)

Represented 3DLabs in patent litigation involving 3D graphics technology. FuzzySharp Technologies, Inc. v. 3DLabs, Inc., Ltd. (Northern District of California)

Represented High Point Sarl in worldwide patent infringement litigation against Sprint Nextel, KPN, E-Plus and KDDI related to cellular network infrastructure in the United States, Holland, Germany and Japan. High Point Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al. (Eastern District of Virginia, District of Kansas); High Point Sarl v. KPN (Netherlands infringement and validity courts); High Point Sarl v. E-Plus(German infringement court); High Point Sarl v. KDDI (Japan infringement court)

Represented Newron Pharmaceuticals in patent interference proceedings against Purdue Neuroscience related to chemical compounds for treating neuropathic pain. Won final judgment of priority for Newron. Pevarello v. Lan, Interference No. 105,349 (USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences)

Represented Best Buy in patent infringement case involving multichannel computer sound cards. Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Best Buy, et al.(Northern District of Illinois)

Represented CME in patent infringement case involving electronic financial exchanges. Fifth Market, Inc. v. CME Group, Inc., et al. (District of Delaware)

Represented CME in patent lawsuit related to electronic market maker trading systems. CME Group, Inc. v. Technology Research Group LLC (Northern District of Illinois)

Represented Creative Labs and Sears in patent infringement case involving multichannel computer sound cards. Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al. (Northern District of Illinois)

Represented Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc. in Section 337 investigation against Linear Technology Corp. related to voltage regulator chips. In the Matter of Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-564 (U.S. International Trade Commission)

Represented Acer Inc. and Gateway in seven-patent suit involving wireless networking, CDMA modules, processor architecture and power management. Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)

Represented Acer in multi-district litigation involving computer architecture, I/O systems, device drivers, and power management. Acer Inc., et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Western District of Wisconsin); In the Matter of Certain Computer Systems, Printers and Scanners, Inv. No. 337-TA-618 (U.S. International Trade Commission)

Represented Molecular Biosystems, Inc. in patent infringement suit related to ultrasound contrast agents. Sonus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. (Western District of Washington)

Represented Molecular Dynamics in patent infringement suit against Leica involving confocal microscopy. Molecular Dynamics, Inc. v. Leica, Inc. (Northern District of California)


Harvard Law School, J.D., with honors, 1997
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.S., Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 1994
University of Maryland, B.S., Electrical Engineering, with highest honors, 1992

Honors and Distinctions

The National Law Journal, “Defense Hot List,” 2007
California Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation, Thomson Reuters, 2015-2017

Published Works and Presentations

The New Patent Law Explained, First Inventor to File, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology
Technology Company Perspectives on Patent Litigation: What Can Each Patent Adjudication Institution Learn from the Other, USITC in Silicon Valley, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology
Nuts & Bolts of Patent Litigation, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology

Court Admissions

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Professional Memberships

Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association
Member, ITC Trial Lawyers Association
Member, Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association

Practice Areas