James Y.C. Sze is a registered patent attorney with over 20 years of experience in applying patent law to business problems. James focuses his practice on advising clients on intellectual property due diligence for corporate transactions, complex domestic and international patent prosecution in the electrical engineering and software technologies, and counseling on patent infringement issues. His practice includes patent portfolio management, identifying technology for IP protection, auditing in-house intellectual property management practices, patent prosecution, and managing international patent litigation, particularly in electrical and medical device patents.
James advises on patent validity, infringement, and enforceability, as well as freedom to operate within a particular technological space. He represents clients in computer graphics, computer communications technology, computer architecture, and bioinformatics, as well as university technology transfer offices. He has represented clients in intellectual property litigation in venues that include U.S. district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission. Fluent in Mandarin Chinese, James also advises his clients on protecting their intellectual property in the Far East. His representative technology areas include medical devices, analog and digital circuits, natural language processing, semiconductors, optics, ultra-violet/laser equipment, image processing, hard disk drives, Radio-Frequency antennas, nanodevices, microprocessor design, computer networking, encryption and data compression, computer simulation, and business methods.
Prior to joining the firm, James was a partner in the San Diego, California office of a national law firm as a member of its Patents Group and he focused on electrical and communications technology, software, and business methods.
As a former engineer with Qualcomm, Inc. in San Diego, California, James designed satellite communications software, messaging systems, and other wireless applications. James also has enforced, licensed, and assisted in the sale of patents he has written.
James was recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® in 2023 and 2024 for Patent Law. He was recommended in 2019 by Legal 500 US for Patent Prosecution. James was a finalist for “Top IP Attorney” awarded in 2008 by the San Diego Daily Transcript and was recognized as a semi-finalist for the award in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2014.
Insights View All
University of San Diego School of Law J.D. (1999)
University of California, San Diego M.S.
Electrical and Computer Engineering,
The 1994 National Information Infrastructure Fellowship
University of California, Berkeley B.S. (1991) Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
University of California, Berkeley B.S. (1991) Materials Science Engineering
District of Columbia (2014)
New York (2015)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2001)
Berkeley Engineering Alumni Society, Board of Directors, Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.