Clarence Rowland


Thank you for your interest. Before you communicate with one of our attorneys, please note: Any comments our attorneys share with you are general information and not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship will exist between you or your business and O’Melveny or any of its attorneys unless conflicts have been cleared, our management has given its approval, and an engagement letter has been signed. Meanwhile, you agree: we have no duty to advise you or provide you with legal assistance; you will not divulge any confidences or send any confidential or sensitive information to our attorneys (we are not in a position to keep it confidential and might be required to convey it to our clients); and, you may not use this contact to attempt to disqualify O’Melveny from representing other clients adverse to you or your business. By clicking "accept" you acknowledge receipt and agree to all of the terms of this paragraph and our Disclaimer.

Clarence Rowland focuses his practice on patent litigation, and has substantial experience in a wide-range of technology including navigation and communications systems, signal processing, laser technology, optics, telemetry, computer hardware and software, and other electrical and mechanical engineering technology.

Before attending law school, Clarence worked as an engineer at Edwards Air Force Base and at Boeing Aerospace Corporation.


Bar Admissions

  • California

Court Admissions

  • US District Court, Districts of Central and Northern California

Registered to Practice

  • US Patent & Trademark Office


  • University of Chicago Law School, J.D., 2012
  • Claremont McKenna College, B.A., 2007
  • Harvey Mudd College, B.S., 2007

Professional Activities


  • Northern District of California, Judge Charles Breyer


  • Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association, In-House Counsel Outreach Committee


  • “The State Of Intradistrict Venue Transfer In West Texas," Law360 (May 18, 2022)


  • “Your Claim Is Invalid — My Expert Says So,” Law360 (May 31, 2013)
  • “My Expert Translates Better Than Yours: A Guide to Using Translated Documents in Patent Litigation,” California State Bar Association New Matter, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Winter 2013)
  • Part of trial team that successfully defended an electronics company against patent infringement claims involving remote controls; achieved a jury verdict of non-infringement, invalidity due to anticipation and obviousness, improper inventorship, patent misuse, laches, equitable estoppel, and unclean hands, and eventually received an award of $4.6 million in attorneys’ fees
  • Represented an electronics company in connection with several Inter Partes Review proceedings before the USPTO
  • Represented an electronics company in a Federal Circuit appeal of a post-trial order reversing jury verdicts on equitable issues in a patent case
  • Represented an electronics company in defending against patents covering proximity sensors and color detection hardware
  • Represented a software company in asserting software patents arising from the electronic design automation industry