John Kappos

Partner

Disclaimer

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.

John Kappos, a registered patent attorney for over 20 years, was lead or co-lead counsel in patent litigations in federal district courts throughout the nation, in the International Trade Commission, and in domestic and international arbitrations. John has also assisted companies in post grant review proceedings, inter partes review proceedings, and Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences proceedings.

Honors & Awards

  • “Life Sciences Star” for General Patent Litigation by LMG Life Sciences (2018-2020)
  • Repeatedly recognized as a Southern California “Super Lawyer” in a survey conducted by Law & Politics Media Inc. and published in Los Angeles magazine and the Southern California edition of Super Lawyers
  • Named a “Rising Star” by the same organization

Admissions

Bar Admissions

  • California

Court Admissions

  • US District Court, Southern, Northern, Eastern, and Central Districts of California
  • US Court of Appeals, Second, Ninth, and Federal Circuits
  • US Supreme Court

Registered to Practice

  • US Patent & Trademark Office

Education

  • University of California at Los Angeles, J.D., 1994
  • Harvard University, Ph.D., Chemistry, 1991
  • University of California at Irvine, B.S., Chemistry, 1986

Professional Activities

Member

  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • American Bar Association
  • Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Orange County Patent Law Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Orange County Bar Association 

Speaker

  • “Is The Supreme Court Exhausted With Patents?," O’Melveny Corporate Counsel Seminar (July 2008)
  • “Complying With The Duty Of Care And Avoiding Willful Patent Infringement," O’Melveny Corporate Counsel Seminar (August 2006)

Co-Author

  • “Patent Venue Reform: Forum Shopping In A Bear Market,” The Recorder (December 2020)
  • “Supreme Court Back in the Patent Limelight,”  Orange County Business Journal (August 2014)
  • “Medical Treatment and Diagnostic Procedures - Patent Eligible?,” Orange County Business Journal (August 2010)
  • “Changing Opinions on Willful Patent Infringement,” Orange County Business Journal (August 2009)
  • “Redefining Obviousness After KSR Decision:  Eisai Provides Some Greatly Needed Predictability for Biotech and Pharma,” Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (October 2008)
  • “Is the Supreme Court Exhausted With Patents?” Orange County Business Journal (September 2008)
  • Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines And Diagnostics, Inc. After bench trial to Judge Robinson in Delaware, secured a ruling of no invalidity of Novartis’s patents directed to synthetic, recombinant blood coagulation protein Factor VIII used in treatment of Hemophilia A. Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 486 (2010).  The Federal Circuit upheld that ruling in a majority 2-1 precedential opinion. Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011), and the US Supreme Court denied certiorari, which resulted in a favorable resolution of underlying infringement litigation.
  • In the Matter of Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-692 (United States International Trade Commission) and parallel litigation in the Central District of California. This investigation involved 4,600 accused products and four patents asserted against a Samsung business unit that manufactures multilayer ceramic capacitors for the consumer electronics industry. After a full trial on the merits in 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued a complete defense judgment in Samsung's favor on December 22, 2010.
  • In the Matter of Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-897 (United States International Trade Commission) and parallel litigation in the District of Delaware. Resolved Section 337 International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation asserting six patents against Samsung’s optical disk drives, desktop computers, Blu-ray and DVD players/recorders, and laptop computers.
  • Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. et al. v. Medimmune, LLC, Biogen IDEC, Inc., and Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (DED Civil Action No. 11-CV-84-SLR-MPT). Enforced a Novartis patent directed to cytomegalovirus expression systems and their use in manufacturing of biologics.  All three actions filed against the manufacturers of biologics Synagis, Tysabri, and Soliris were successfully resolved.
  • In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices With Graphic Video Processing Systems Components Thereof, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-813 (United States International Trade Commission) and parallel litigation in the District of Delaware. Defended a leading technology company in this investigation brought by S3 Graphics accusing several products, in combination with associated software. Resolved case on favorable terms when the parties reached a settlement as part of a highly-publicized, global settlement. 
VIEW MORE

In the News