Two Embarcadero Center Suite 1900, San Francisco, CA USA 94111
Jonah Mitchell is an experienced intellectual property and commercial trial lawyer. He delivers creative, strategic solutions in complex disputes for innovators and businesses. Appreciated for his problem-solving skills and practical legal advice, Jonah consistently helps clients resolve disputes and litigation effectively and efficiently. He advocates for his clients in complex, high-stakes litigation involving patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and commercial disputes.
Jonah has successfully led multiple trials and arbitrations. He is tenacious in representing his clients’ interests and has tried cases in the busiest jurisdictions across the country including the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the International Trade Commission.
Jonah has a substantial breadth of knowledge and experience, and represents companies involved in a wide array of industries, ranging from high tech to health care to manufacturing to consumer goods. He has handled cases involving computer hardware and software, networking equipment and software, cloud computing software, cybersecurity, database and data integration software, integrated circuits, WiFi chips and devices, Ethernet technology, MEMS sensors, medical imaging software, medical devices, and outdoor sports and recreation products, among others.
Jonah also has extensive experience handling the remedial aspects of litigation, including requests for provisional relief and damages, and has multiple successes in both obtaining and defeating preliminary injunctive relief and in excluding damages experts.
Prior to joining the firm, Jonah was a partner in the San Francisco, California office of a global law firm where he was an intellectual property and commercial trial lawyer.
Jonah was recognized as a top patent practitioner in 2026 and the three years immediately preceding by IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners. He was named a California "Top Intellectual Property Lawyer" in 2024 and 2026 by the Daily Journal.
Experience
Patent Litigation:
*Defending Keysight in global, multi-forum patent infringement dispute with litigation proceedings in the ITC (three patents), Eastern District of Virginia (11 patents), PTAB (eight patents), Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Germany Federal Patent Court (three patents), Unified Patent Court (one patent), and European Patent Office (three patents). Prevailed after trial at the ITC with a finding of no violation. All three asserted patents found invalid, and two patents found not infringed. Affirmed by Federal Circuit. 100% institution rate at PTAB on eight IPRs. 95+% invalidation success rate on claims challenged at PTAB; over 185 claims across eight patents invalidated. Prevailed on motion to stay EDVA action. All claims of two patents asserted in Germany invalidated at EPO and affirmed on appeal; all original claims of third patent invalidated in Germany Federal Patent Court (appeal pending). Prevailed on non-infringement at UPC and nullified asserted patent at the EPO proceedings (appeals pending). Multiple affirmances on appeals stemming from ITC and PTAB victories before the Federal Circuit. Centripetal Networks v. Keysight Technologies.
*Represented defendant in $270 million patent infringement action involving 12 patents relating to collaborative software and file synchronization. Prevailed on motion to transfer case from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Northern District of California. Defeated motion for preliminary injunction. Invalidated five asserted patents on motion for judgment on the pleadings. Prevailed on motion to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert. After a two-week jury trial, the jury awarded plaintiff less than 2% of its original damages claim.
*Defended a multinational technology company in patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas involving accusations under three patents against the 802.11 WiFi standard. Prevailed on motion to stay the entire action. Prevailed in inter partes reviews before the PTAB on nearly all asserted claims.
*Prevailed in inter partes reviews before the PTAB on nearly all asserted claims of three patents, including all challenged claims of two patents. Prevailed on appeals before the Federal Circuit, including preserving victories invalidating challenged claims of all three asserted patents and obtaining reversal of non-obviousness finding on lone challenged claim that survived IPR, thereby securing invalidity on all challenged claims of all three patents.
*Defended a Japanese multinational electronics company in a lawsuit brought by a Texas-based company in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of two patents directed to micromechanical systems. The plaintiff stipulated to dismiss the case after the client moved to dismiss the action, challenging venue and personal jurisdiction. Defending the client in subsequent patent infringement lawsuits initiated by the plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas and the Central District of California.
*Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving Ethernet technology. Prevailed on motion to transfer action from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement.
*Represented defendant in patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas relating to data integration. Obtained summary judgment of invalidity which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
*Represented a leading enterprise data management company in patent litigation filed by a privately held U.S.-based cybersecurity company in the District of Connecticut. Case transferred to the Northern District of California and stayed pending CBM proceeding. Patents invalidated by the PTAB in CBM proceeding.
*Represented defendants through trial in defense of infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas on multiple patents concerning wireless technology that were asserted against 802.11 WiFi standard. Obtained reversal of patent infringement and RAND damages award due to lack of substantial evidence and erroneous jury instruction. Asserted patents subsequently invalidated in inter partes re-examination.
*Represented defendants in patent infringement actions involving database technology. Prevailed on motion to transfer from the Western District of Washington to the Northern District of California. Obtained multiple summary judgments of non-infringement. Case resolved.
*Represented declaratory judgment plaintiff in patent infringement action involving accusations against 802.11 WiFi standard.
*Represented defendants in patent infringement action in Eastern District of Texas involving wireless and DSL technology, and assertions against 802.11 WiFi standard.
*Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving medical imaging database technology.
*Represented defendant in patent infringement action in the Northern District of California involving acoustical building materials. Obtained a judgment of dismissal with prejudice and a broad covenant not to sue for defendant.
*Represented defendant in patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas involving claims against 802.11 WiFi products.
*Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving data broadcasting over a television signal. Obtained judgment of non-infringement which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Trade Secret Misappropriation and Unfair Competition:
*Represented plaintiff in misappropriation of confidential information and unfair competition action. Obtained preliminary injunction restricting development of defendant’s competitive venture, including barring over 60 defendant-employees from working on competitive venture.
*Represented plaintiff in trade secret misappropriation action involving networking technology. Obtained preliminary injunction, followed by a permanent injunction and judgment for monetary damages.
*Represented defendant in trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement action in Northern District of California. Prevailed on motion to dismiss multiple Trade Secret Misappropriation and Unfair Competition claims. Case resolved.
*Represented defendant in trade secret misappropriation action involving acoustical building materials. Defeated majority of plaintiff’s preliminary injunction application. Case settled.
*Represented defendants in trade secret misappropriation action involving telecom test equipment. Defeated plaintiff’s preliminary injunction application. Case settled.
*Represented plaintiff in trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition action against former employee’s new venture and several former employees. Obtained stipulated preliminary injunction. Case settled.
*Represented defendant in trade secret misappropriation action involving Ethernet networking. Defeated request for expedited relief.
*Represented plaintiff in trade secret misappropriation action involving video technology.
Commercial and Other IP Disputes:
*Represented defendant in commercial dispute in the Middle District of Florida. Defeated plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and fraud on summary judgment. Prevailed in jury trial on breach of contract counterclaim, resulting in judgment in favor of the client for over $17 million. Obtained affirmance from Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
*Represented respondent in commercial arbitration involving license dispute and claims of breach of contract and fraud seeking over $30 million in damages. Defeated breach of contract claim following evidentiary hearing, with arbitrator adopting respondent’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in their entirety. Prevailed on additional breach of contract and fraud claims on motion for summary judgment.
*Represented licensor in international arbitration against licensee regarding intellectual property license dispute. Following evidentiary hearing before three-arbitrator panel, prevailed on all claims and obtained accounting and past and prospective multi-million royalty damages award. Awarded full attorneys’ fees and costs.
*Represented corporate and individual respondents accused of fraud and breach of contract in AAA commercial arbitration concerning patent license agreement. Following evidentiary hearing before three-arbitrator panel, prevailed on all claims and awarded attorney fee recovery.
*Represented plaintiff in copyright infringement and breach of license agreement action.
*Represented defendant in copyright infringement and breach of license agreement action.
*Represented defendant in trademark infringement action.
*Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law J.D. (1999) Moot Court Board Member
California Polytechnic State University B.S., Agricultural Business (1995)
California (1999)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Disclaimer
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.
