• Advisory Board Member and Annual Seminar Co-Chair, San Francisco Intellectual Property Association

• Named among Lawdragon’s 2025 “500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”
• Recognized in the 2024, 2025, and 2026 editions of the Lawdragon 100 Leading AI & Legal Tech Advisors 
• Recognized as a 2024 “Top Artificial Intelligence Lawyer” by Daily Journal
• Listed under the Intellectual Property Litigation category in the 2021 and 2022 editions of Best Lawyers in America
• Selected as a "Rising Star" by Law360 in 2019

Notable Representations

• As lead trial counsel, secured a complete jury victory for microtransit leader Via Transportation in a patent litigation competitor case tried in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. After less than three hours of deliberation, the jury found that RideCo infringed three of Via’s patents on its virtual bus stop technology and ordered RideCo to pay damages, with total damages to be determined. Via also prevailed against RideCo’s counterclaims, with the jury finding that Via did not infringe either of RideCo’s two asserted patents.
• Represented Waymo LLC, formerly Google’s self-driving car program, in an action asserting misappropriation of trade secrets and patent infringement against Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC relating to Waymo’s self-driving technology. Jordan led the technical team, including co-presenting Waymo’s opening statement at trial. After opening statements and on the fourth day of trial, the parties settled the litigation, with Uber granting Waymo a percentage of equity in Uber (valued at $245 million) as well as injunctive relief that ensures that Uber will not use Waymo’s trade secret hardware and software self-driving technology.*
• On behalf of Google Inc., obtained summary judgment of invalidity on Section 101 grounds for patent asserted against Google search-related functionality.*
• Represented Fortinet Inc. as a plaintiff in wide-ranging dispute with its competitor and certain former employees, involving alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, patent infringement claims and other various state law claims. The dispute included parallel proceedings in the Northern District of California, JAMS arbitration, the District of Delaware and three inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board. In JAMS arbitration, Fortinet successfully convinced the arbitrator that one former Fortinet employee had engaged in “despicable,” “deceitful and malicious” conduct, and awarded Fortinet actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The parties settled shortly before trial in the Northern District of California on Fortinet’s trade secret and patent infringement claims, with the competitor agreeing to make a confidential one-time payment to Fortinet.*
• Represented defendant Samsung Electronics and third-party Google in the second “smartphone” patent case brought by Apple in the Northern District of California. Representation focused on Apple patents on alleged universal search, for which Apple did not recover, including Apple dropping one patent before trial (after it had previously obtained a preliminary injunction on the same patent) and a jury verdict of non-infringement for the other.*
• Represented respondent HTC in an ITC investigation (337-TA-710) initiated by Apple involving ten patents covering object-oriented operating systems, real-time processing, user interface and networking technologies. Five patents were dismissed prior to trial, and one additional patent was dismissed during trial. All patent claims defended by the firm were determined to be not infringed and invalid.*
• Represented respondent HTC in a second ITC investigation (337-TA-797) filed by Apple involving patents concerning sensor-based rotation of user interface, and touch panel sensor design. Secured ITC Staff recommendation for complete defense victory in second investigation. Shortly before an initial determination was due, HTC and Apple executed a worldwide settlement.*
• Represented Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. in defending patent infringement claims brought by U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC, involving four patents related to Ethernet technology. Some of the asserted patents had previously been asserted against other parties, including one assertion resulting a $45 million jury verdict in N.D. Cal. After successfully transferring its suit from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District California. Marvell won summary judgment of invalidity and/or non-infringement as to all of the asserted patents.*
• Represented BlackBerry in a patent lawsuit brought by SPH America, LLC in the Southern District of California, asserting nine patents that purportedly relate to the fields of spreading and modulation for 3G cellular communications, slotted CDMA random access systems, and wireless communications under IEEE 802.11g.  The case settled favorably.*
• Represented Sony Ericsson (now Sony Mobile) in a lawsuit in San Diego federal court involving five patents asserted against 3G WCDMA technology. The case settled favorably.*
• Represented eHarmony, ESPN, Fox, Gannett, LinkedIn, Match.com, MTV, Twitter, and Skype in defending against patent infringement claims in the Eastern District of Texas. Each defendant settled for a fraction (less than two orders of magnitude) less than plaintiff's original demand early in the litigation.*
• Represented Catalina Marketing in its suit to enforce a patent in the field of electronic coupon distribution. The suit settled on the eve of the claim construction hearing, with a full recognition that the patent at issue was valid and enforceable.*
• Represented Mixbook in a patent infringement suit brought by its much larger competitor, involving patents concerning photobook software technology.*
• Represented IBM in a patent infringement indemnity suit concerning automated telephony systems.*
• Represented IBM in a patent infringement suit concerning database reporting software.*

* Denotes experience at another firm prior to joining Wilson Sonsini in 2021.

Select Speaking Engagements

• “IP Law Update and the Impact on In-House Counsel,” San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel, November 2, 2022
• "Can AI be a Named Inventor on a US Patent - Practical and Legal Considerations," Wilson Sonsini MCLE Virtual Series, December 16, 2021