Cameron Jahansouz

I'll research this attorney before drafting the summary.

Let me verify the case and any firm transition.

I see potential name ambiguity (a Gunderson Dettmer transactional associate vs. a Knobbe Martens patent attorney). Let me dig further.

Note on sourcing: Public information on this attorney is thin, and there is a name-overlap risk I could not fully resolve within my search budget. The summary below flags what is verified versus uncertain.

---

Specialty / focus areas. The only tracked matter is One-E-Way, Inc. v. Sony Corporation et al. (plaintiff side), which places his patent work in the consumer-electronics/wireless-communications space. The asserted One-E-Way patents (U.S. 7,865,258 and 8,131,391) cover portable wireless digital audio systems — CDMA/spread-spectrum transmission from an audio source to wireless headphones. That is the sole basis for a technology-area read, so it should be treated as one data point, not a demonstrated specialty.

Side preference. Tracked data show 1 plaintiff-side appearance and 0 defendant-side, at the role of Counsel. That single matter was on behalf of the patent owner/NPE (One-E-Way) rather than an operating company, so the record is too sparse to support characterizing him as a consistent plaintiff/NPE-side or defense-side litigator. No verified defense-side engagements appeared.

Firm context. Current tracked firm is Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear (IP boutique, Irvine, CA headquarters). This is corroborated by a USPTO Registration to Practice notice (dated Feb. 13, 2018) listing "Jahansouz, Cameron, Knobbe Martens Olson and Bear, LLP, 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor, Irvine, CA 92614." A separate, undated profile for a "Cameron Jahansouz" appears at Gunderson Dettmer (Silicon Valley) as an associate in the Licensing, Strategic Partnering & Commercial Transactions group — a transactional IP role, not litigation. I could not confirm whether that is the same individual (a transaction-to-litigation move would be plausible, but nothing verifies it), so please treat the Gunderson reference as unconfirmed.

Notable cases / outcomes. The tracked matter, One-E-Way, Inc. v. Sony Corp. et al., is related to a broader One-E-Way campaign against Sony, Creative Labs, and others. In the parallel ITC proceeding, the Commission held the "virtually free from interference" limitation indefinite and invalidated the claims; the Federal Circuit affirmed in One-E-Way, Inc. v. ITC, No. 16-2105 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2017), applying Nautilus. That adverse outcome is attributable to the patent-owner side generally — I found no source tying Mr. Jahansouz personally to the appeal or to the invalidity result, and his specific contribution to his tracked case could not be verified.

PTAB / IPR. No PTAB, IPR, or PGR appearances were found for him. Notably, in the Sony-side IPRs against One-E-Way (e.g., IPR2016-01639, U.S. 9,282,396), the patent owner's counsel of record were Thomas D. Robbins and Daphne Burton, and the petitioner's counsel was Kenyon & Kenyon — no Knobbe or Jahansouz appearance. I cannot say he has no PTAB experience, only that none is documented.

Bar / education (unverified as to this individual). A Martindale profile for the Gunderson-affiliated "Cameron Jahansouz" lists California admission (2013), a Stanford Law J.D., and a University of Virginia B.A. in Chemistry; because I could not confirm that profile is the same person, treat these credentials as unverified. No reliably sourced bar or education data specific to the Knobbe Martens attorney was located.

Bottom line: On the authoritative record, this is a Knobbe Martens patent attorney with a single tracked, plaintiff-side (patent-owner) appearance in consumer wireless-audio litigation, and no verifiable PTAB or defense-side footprint. Additional verification of his firm history and credentials is advisable before relying on any practice characterization.