Patent litigation attorney
James Hannah
21 tracked appearances — 8 plaintiff · 13 defendant.
Specialty & background
James Hannah is a distinguished patent litigator with a practice focused on high-stakes intellectual property disputes, particularly in the high-tech sector. His expertise spans a range of technologies, including telecommunications (5G, NFV, wireless), semiconductors, computer hardware and software (mobile, web-building, virtualization, cybersecurity), electronics, and medical devices. Hannah also possesses significant experience in cases involving standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licensing disputes.
Hannah's practice demonstrates a balanced approach, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. While he has appeared as counsel for plaintiffs in 6 tracked cases, his robust defense-side work includes 12 appearances for defendant operating companies. He currently practices as a Partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, having previously been associated with Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, which is now part of the Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer entity in the US.
Among his notable achievements, Hannah secured the largest patent judgment in history for a plaintiff client in Centripetal Networks v. Palo Alto Networks, resulting in a minimum payment of $2.65 billion and potential recovery up to $3.25 billion based on future royalties for cybersecurity patent infringement. His case experience includes representing clients such as Lemko Corporation in patent infringement litigation against AT&T Inc. concerning mobile network virtualization innovations, and W&Wsens Devices Inc. against Texas Instruments Incorporated and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.. He also represented Express Mobile, Inc. as "Of Counsel" in a case against Google LLC.
Hannah is also highly active in Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He is recognized as a leading practitioner in IPRs, having successfully prosecuted and defended hundreds of IPR trials for both patent owners and petitioners. His extensive PTAB experience is evidenced by numerous appearances as respondent counsel in cases initiated by Unified Patents LLC, and as lead counsel for clients like Lemko Corporation and ROHM Semiconductor USA, LLC in various IPR proceedings. He earned his J.D., with honors, from Golden Gate University in 2005, following a B.S.E.E. from the University of California, San Diego, in 2002. He is admitted to practice in California, the District of Columbia, New York, and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, among other courts.
Firms
Roles
- Lead Counsel7
- lead counsel6
- Counsel2
- Of Counsel1
- of counsel1
- counsel1
- Respondent Counsel1
- Partner1
- Counsel for Patent Owner1
Cases (21)
- π plaintiffCentripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel · lead counsel
- π plaintiffCentripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer · Counsel for Patent Owner
- π plaintiffEXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. Google LLCKramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel · Of Counsel
- Δ defendantKeysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer · Partner
- Δ defendantLemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc. et al.Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) · Counsel
- Δ defendantNot yet publicly available v. W&wsens Devices Inc.Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) · Lead Counsel
- π plaintiffPayGeo, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer · of counsel
- Δ defendantSamsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. W&Wsens Devices Inc.Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) · lead counsel
- Δ defendantSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. PayGeo, LLCHerbert Smith Freehills Kramer (us) · Counsel
- Δ defendantUnified Patents LLC v. Paygeo LLCHerbert Smith Freehills Kramer · lead counsel
- Δ defendantUnified Patents v. [Patent Owner]Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) · lead counsel
- Δ defendantUnified Patents v. Cleveland Medical Devices IncHerbert Smith Freehills Kramer · Respondent Counsel
- Δ defendantUnified Patents v. Cleveland Medical Devices Inc.Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel · lead counsel
- π plaintiffUnified Patents v. Paygeo LLCHerbert Smith Freehills Kramer (us) · counsel
- Δ defendantUnified Patents v. TOUTVIRTUAL IncHerbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) · Lead Counsel
- Δ defendantUnified Patents v. TOUTVIRTUAL IncHerbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) · Lead Counsel
- Δ defendantUnified Patents v. TOUTVIRTUAL Inc.Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) · Lead Counsel
- Δ defendantUntitled caseHerbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) · Lead Counsel
- π plaintiffUntitled caseKramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel · Lead Counsel
- π plaintiffW&wsens Devices Inc. v. Not yet publicly availableKramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel · lead counsel
- π plaintiffW&Wsens Devices Inc. v. Texas Instruments IncorporatedKramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel · Lead Counsel