Jim Brogan is Chair of Cooley's Intellectual Property practice and partner in the Firm's Litigation department. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, where he teaches a course on patent litigation. Mr. Brogan joined Cooley in 2000 and is resident in the Colorado and Palo Alto offices.
Throughout his 20-plus year legal career, Mr. Brogan has served as lead trial counsel for a diverse collection of technology and life sciences companies such as Innolux Corporation, Gevo, Inc., Hon Hai Precision Industries, Ltd., Picolight, Inc., ACQIS Technology, Inc., and Monolithic Power Systems. In this capacity, Mr. Brogan has successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes patent trials focusing on key products and technologies. Over the past three years alone, Mr. Brogan scored important jury victories in the Eastern District of Texas, including a win against IBM in which the jury determined that the Fortune 100 company infringed our client's patents relating to blade servers.
"…having a compelling story that a jury can understand is equally,
if not more, important
[than the technology
Read a Q&A with Jim Brogan
In addition to his trial practice, Mr. Brogan regularly finds solutions to his clients' patent disputes in the early stages of litigation. Through his persuasive arguments, investment in understanding the technology at issue, and focus on strategy and trial preparation, Mr. Brogan positions his clients to secure outcomes that are in line with their definitions of a win. For example, Mr. Brogan recently secured a favorable summary determination for Innolux Corporation in an ITC Section 337 investigation brought by Mondis Technology concerning LCD panels.
Mr. Brogan is one of the driving forces behind the Firm's Strategic Intellectual Property Practice and he has taken a lead role in managing several of the firm's traditional and contingency-based patent litigation and licensing efforts. These licensing programs have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues for the firm's clients.
Outside of his patent litigation practice, Mr. Brogan has taken a lead role in several trademark cancellation and opposition proceedings. Mr. Brogan also has assisted numerous clients, ranging from start-ups to established corporations, with the strategic development and maintenance of their patent and trademark portfolios.
Mr. Brogan is honored regularly for his work in the patent litigation, IP and technology areas. For the past two years in a row, he has been named the "Colorado IP Litigator of the Year" by Managing Intellectual Property (2014, 2015) for his outstanding achievement in IP litigation. He has also been recognized by the same publication as an "IP Star," receiving the highest ranking for his patent contentious work. He is named one of the top patent litigators in the United States (Legal 500 2015) and has been ranked in Chambers USA every year since 2005 and most recently was ranked in Band 1 for Intellectual Property in Colorado. In the 2012 edition of Chambers USA, Mr. Brogan was described by a client as being "a superb lawyer," "articulate," "efficient" and "always available for his clients." Further, another client indicated he/she couldn't "say enough good things about" the Colorado IP group that Mr. Brogan leads. In addition, he has been recognized numerous times as a leader in patent litigation, patent, IP and technology law by Best Lawyers in America. He was also named to Intellectual Asset Management's (IAM) Patent 1000 list, an exclusive recognition reserved for the top patent practitioners in the world. In the most recent edition of IAM Patent 1000, clients described Mr. Brogan as a litigator who is "head and shoulders above the competition" and "technically proficient, exceptionally knowledgeable and tremendously diligent." In addition, Mr. Brogan is named to 5280 Denver Magazine's list of "Denver's Top Lawyers," one of only four attorneys to be recognized as a leader in IP litigation.
In addition to teaching, Mr. Brogan is a frequent speaker on patent-litigation and patent-prosecution topics. For example, Mr. Brogan is a co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property Institute, an annual continuing legal education event presented in Denver by the Colorado Bar Association. Mr. Brogan serves on the planning committee for the Institute and has recently presented on topics including: venue selection in patent litigation, management of infringement risk, claim construction, and patent litigation budgeting.
Mr. Brogan received a JD in 1991 from the University of Houston Law Center, where he was a member of the Order of Barons and an associate editor of the Houston Law Review. Before attending law school, Mr. Brogan earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Southern Methodist University, with a specialization in biomedicine and a minor in business.
Mr. Brogan is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Patent & Trademark Office. Mr. Brogan also is a member of the Colorado and California State Bar Associations, the American Bar Association, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association. He is also a past President of the Orange County Barristers, an affiliate of the Orange County Bar Association.
Patent Defense Cases:
- Butamax v. Gevo (D. Del.) – counsel for Gevo in a patent infringement action involving metabolically engineered micro-organisms for biofuel production.
- Broadcom v. Qualcomm (ITC) – counsel for Qualcomm in a patent infringement litigation involving wireless communications.
- Mondis Technology v. Chimei Innolux Corp. and Innolux Corp. (E.D. Tx. and ITC) – counsel for Chimei Innolux Corp. and Innolux Corp. in a patent infringement action involving video displays.
- O2 Micro International, Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tx.) – counsel for Hon Hai Precision Industries in a patent infringement action involving controllers for switching power used in LCD backlighting applications.
- O2 Micro International, Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (N.D. Ca. and E.D. Tx.) – counsel for Monolithic Power Systems in a patent infringement action involving controllers for switching power used in LCD backlighting applications.
- MKS Instruments, Inc. v. Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. (D. Del.) – counsel for Advanced Energy in a patent infringement action involving reactive gas sources for use in plasma processing systems.
- Stratos Lightwave, Inc. v. Picolight, Inc. (D. Del.) – counsel for Picolight in a patent infringement action involving opto-electronic transceiver modules.
Patent Plaintiff Litigation:
- Qualcomm v. Nokia Corp. (E.D. Tx.) – counsel for Qualcomm in a patent infringement litigation involving wireless communications.
- Realtime Data v. T-Mobile (E.D. Tx.) – counsel for Realtime Data in a patent infringement litigation involving data compression.
- ACQIS v. IBM, et al. (E.D. Tx.) – counsel to ACQIS in a patent infringement action involving blade servers.
- Positive Technologies, Inc. v. Hitachi America et al. (E.D. Tx.) – counsel for Positive Technologies in a patent infringement action involving processing technologies for improving response speeds and image quality in LCD and other matrix displays.
- Applied Films GMBH & Co. KG v. Galileo Vacuum Systems, Inc. and Galileo Vacuum Systems s.r.l. (N.D. Ga.) – counsel for Applied Films in a patent infringement action involving plasma-based web coating systems.
- Phillips v. AWH Corp. (CAFC) (en banc) – consultant to Phillips' trial counsel in a high-profile appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The litigation relates to modular building technologies.
- Quova, Inc. v. Digital Envoy, Inc. (N.D. Ca.) – counsel for Quova in a declaratory judgment action related to geo-location software.
- Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. v. MKS Instruments, Inc. (D. Del.) – counsel for Advanced Energy in a patent infringement action involving reactive gas sources for use in plasma processing applications.
- Picolight, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc. (D. Del.) – counsel for Picolight in a patent infringement action involving vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSELs) and opto-electronic transceiver products.
- Outlast Technologies, Inc. v. Frisby Technologies, Inc. (D. Colo.) – counsel for Outlast in a patent infringement action involving temperature-regulating fibers and fabrics.
- Vixel, Inc. v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. (N.D. Ca.) – counsel for Vixel in a patent infringement action involving storage area network switching technologies.
- Vixel, Inc. v. QLogic Corporation (D. Del.) – counsel for Vixel in a patent infringement action involving storage area network switching technologies.
- IP Learn LLC v. Saba, Inc. (N.D. Ca.) – counsel for IP Learn in a patent infringement action involving e-learning systems.
- IP Learn LLC v. SmartForce, Inc. (N.D. Ca.) – counsel for IP Learn in a patent infringement action involving e-learning systems.
- IP Learn LLC v. SkillSoft, Inc. (N.D. Ca.) – counsel for IP Learn in a patent infringement action involving e-learning systems.
- Vidamed, Inc. v. Prosurge, Inc. (N.D. Ca.) – counsel to Vidamed in a patent infringement action involving transurethral needle ablation systems.
- University of Houston Law Center
- Southern Methodist University
BS Electrical Engineering, 1988
- U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court, Central District of California
- U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
- Registered to practice before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)
- American Bar Association
- American Intellectual Property Law Association