Miranda Jones is an accomplished intellectual property litigator with a focus on patent litigation. With more than a decade of experience, Miranda has been instrumental in guiding clients through complex patent trial and appeal proceedings involving parallel inter partes proceedings before the Patent Office.

Leveraging her extensive background, Miranda collaborates closely with her clients to formulate and execute trial strategies tailored to the unique aspects of each case. She has successfully managed cases in a diverse range of technological domains spanning pharmaceuticals, chemical, electrical and mechanical.

Miranda has represented clients in patent disputes in federal courts across the nation, including those in Texas, Pennsylvania, California, Washington, D.C., and Virginia. Beyond her trial work, she has also demonstrated her ability to handle appeals, having presented cases before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and before the United States Supreme Court. Notably, she served as a law clerk to Judge Pauline Newman at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit prior to joining private practice. 

Representative Experience

Supreme Court of the United States

• Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 13-0896 (U.S.): Supreme Court counsel for Commil in appeal involving induced infringement.
• Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-0446 (U.S.): Supreme Court counsel for Amicus Law Professors.
• Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. 15-1189 (U.S.): Supreme Court counsel for Amicus Law Professors.

Appellate Court

• AXTS, Inc. v. F-1 Firearms, LLC, No. 21-1069 (Fed. Circ.): Appellate counsel in an appeal involving patent litigation.
• Rembrandt Wireless v. Samsung Electronics, No. 16-1729: Appellate counsel for Rembrandt in challenge of $16.9 million patent infringement verdict against Samsung.
• CSIRO v. Cisco, No. 15-1066 (Fed. Cir.): Appellate counsel for CSIRO in an appeal involving patent litigation.
• Better Bags, Inc. v. Redi Bag USA, LLC, No. 13-1064 (Fed. Cir.): Appellate counsel for Better Bags in an appeal involving patent infringement; obtained a Rule 36 affirmance in favor of Better Bags. (Opinion)
• Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 12-1042 (Fed. Cir.): Appellate counsel for Commil in appeal involving patent litigation.
• Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc., et al. v. Braintree Laboratories, No. 11-1539 (Fed. Cir.): Class counsel for an appeal involving an injunction.

Trial Court

• Robert Bosch, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00370 (E.D. VA): Counsel for Westport Fuel Systems in declaratory judgment case related to patents for fuel injector technology.
• Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-455 (E.D. Tex.): Counsel for Westport Fuel Systems in patent infringement litigation involving two patents directed to fuel injector technology.
• Magema Technology LLC v. Phillips 66, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02444 (S.D. Tex.): Lead counsel for Magema Technology LLC in patent infringement litigation involving four patents directed to low-sulfur marine fuel oil technology.
• Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. et al v. ABB Ltd. et al, Case No. 4:18-cv-00178- KPE (S.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for ABB Ltd., ABB AB, and ABB GmbH defending against three patents directed to industrial automation control technologies asserted by Fisher Rosemount Systems and Emerson Process Management LLLP.
• BASF Plant Science, LP v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation et al, Case No. 2:17- cv-00503 (E.D. Va.): Lead counsel for Grains Research and Development Corp. in patent infringement litigation against BASF Plant Sciences and Cargill Inc. involving seven patents related to omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid production.
• AXTS, Inc., v. F-1 Firearms, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-02379-AHB (S.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for AXTS, Inc. in a case involving design patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition.
• Red Rock Analytics, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-117-JRG (E.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for Red Rock Analytics in patent infringement litigation against Apple, involving a patent directed to I/Q calibration techniques.
• Red Rock Analytics, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., 2:17-cv-00101 (E.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for Red Rock Analytics in patent infringement litigation against Samsung Elecs.
• Entro Industries, Inc. v. Hydraulic Systems, Inc., 4:16-cv-01153 (S.D. Tex.): Counsel for Entro Industries in patent infringement litigation involving oil drilling rig walkers.
• Rembrandt Wireless Technologies IP v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al., No. 2:13-cv-00213 (E.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for Rembrandt in litigation for patent infringement involving Bluetooth EDR technology.
• Broadcom v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, No. 6:09-cv-00513 (E.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for CSIRO in litigation for patent infringement involving 802.11 wireless LAN technology.
• CSIRO v. Lenovo, et al., No. 6:09-cv-00399 (E.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for CSIRO in litigation for patent infringement involving 802.11 wireless LAN technology.
• CSIRO v. Cisco, No. 6:11-cv-00343 (E.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for CSIRO in litigation for patent infringement involving 802.11 wireless LAN technology.
• CSIRO v. MediaTek, No. 6:12-cv-00578 (E.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for CSIRO in litigation for patent infringement involving 802.11 wireless LAN technology.
• MicroUnity Systems Engineering Inc. v. Acer et al., No. 2:10-cv-00091 (E.D. Tex.): Trial counsel for MicroUnity in litigation for patent infringement of MicroUnity’s Media Processor patent portfolio.
• In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, 14-md-02521 (N.D. Cal.): Class counsel representing direct purchasers in antitrust multidistrict litigation against Endo Pharmaceuticals over delays in the generic version of the drug.
• In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 14-md-02516 (D. Conn.): Class counsel representing purchasers alleging that Boehringer Ingelheim unlawfully paid to delay entry of a generic version of the Aggrenox blood-clot medication.
• King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc. et al., No. 2:06-cv-01797 (E.D. Pa.): Class counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class in an antitrust class action stemming from an innovator drug company’s assertion of a patent related to modafinil.
• Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc., et al. v. Braintree Laboratories Inc., No. 1:07-cv-00142 (D. Del.): Class counsel for litigation of an antitrust action stemming from an innovator drug company’s assertion of a patent related to polyethylene glycol.
• Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., No. 1:09-cv-00957 (N.D. Ga.): Class counsel for litigation of an antitrust action stemming from an innovator drug company’s assertion of a patent related to a testosterone gel.

Inter Partes Review (IPR)

• Mercedes-Benz USA LLC & Robert Bosch LLC, v. Westport Fuels Sys. Canada Inc.: Counsel for patent owners in four IPR proceedings obtaining a denial of institution on behalf of the patent owner.
• Phillips 66 v. Magema Technology LLC : Counsel for patent owners in four IPR proceedings, obtaining a denial of institution on behalf of the patent owner.
• LG Elecs., et al. v. Rosetta Wireless Corp.: Lead counsel for the patent owner in IPR proceedings. Obtained a denial of institution of IPR on behalf of the patent owner.