Joshua Landau

Joshua Landau is the Patent Counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), where he represents and advises the association regarding patent issues.  Mr. Landau joined CCIA from WilmerHale in 2017, where he represented clients in patent litigation, counseling, and prosecution, including trials in both district courts and before the PTAB.

Prior to his time at WilmerHale, Mr. Landau was a Legal Fellow on Senator Al Franken’s Judiciary staff, focusing on privacy and technology issues.  Mr. Landau received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.S.E.E. from the University of Michigan.  Before law school, he spent several years as an automotive engineer, during which time he co-invented technology leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,934,140.

Follow @PatentJosh on Twitter.

 

Posts by Josh Landau

If Qualcomm Wins At The ITC, We All Lose

This afternoon, CCIA filed comments on the public interest in the Qualcomm v. Apple case pending at the International Trade Commission (ITC).  Qualcomm sued Apple in the ITC as part of the large dispute between the two companies.  (The dispute continues to grow, having recently added a case in Germany and suits and counter-suits between…

Comments to the USPTO on AIA Trial Procedures

On July 6, the Computer and Communications Industry Association submitted comments on America Invents Act (AIA) trial procedures in response to the PTO’s ongoing request for such feedback, most recently at the PTAB Judicial Conference in June. Our comments, briefly summarized, are that: The inter partes review (IPR) procedure has been successful in providing an…

Bad Patents, Bad Results

Tomorrow morning, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet is holding a hearing on “The Impact of Bad Patents on American Businesses.”   The impact of bad patents is a topic worth taking some time to examine, because it isn’t just about the direct impact from abusive troll litigation—bad patents…

The “Doubtful Validity” Type Of Case

“Death squads.”  “Hanging judge[s].” A “reign of terror.”  “Patent killing fields.” Even if we set aside the questionable taste shown in analogizing the review of patents to genocide, there’s some extremely overwrought rhetoric out there being used to describe the inter partes review (IPR) process.  The rhetoric is based on a perception that the Patent…

TC Heartland’s Effects: A Bang Or A Whimper?

Since tomorrow we’re celebrating Independence Day here in D.C., I thought I’d go back and revisit the Independence From Eastern Texas case, TC Heartland, to see how big of an effect it has really had so far.   Are we talking: Or more of a: Prediction And Reality Post-TC Heartland, a number of predictions (including…

IPR Statistics – Success Is Sector Specific

Yesterday, I published an extensive analysis of Senator Coons’ STRONGER Patents Act.  As I said then, the bill would neuter the IPR process, removing any real reason to ever pursue one (assuming you could even file one after the changes to the estoppel, real party in interest, and standing provisions.) One of the reasons I’ve…

STRONGER Patents, WEAKER Innovation

Yesterday, Senator Coons introduced his STRONGER Patents Act.  Senator Coons provided a section-by-section description of the bill, as well as the text of the bill.  And after reading it, I have some concerns.  Patent Progress previously covered Senator Coons’ STRONG Patents Act.  Much of STRONG Patents wound up in STRONGER Patents, and our analysis back…