Jared B. Bobrow

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Good baseline. Now let me verify the tracked cases and notable outcomes.

Let me verify firm history, the Samsung representation, and PTAB matters.

Jared B. Bobrow — Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Silicon Valley / Menlo Park)

Practice focus. Bobrow's practice is centered on patent litigation, primarily in the semiconductor and computer-memory space, with additional experience in networking and communications, storage, software and databases, cloud computing, integrated circuit design, semiconductor process technology and manufacturing equipment, and medical devices; he also handles trade secret litigation and counseling. His public matters are consistent with that profile: the Netlist/Micron/Samsung disputes involve DRAM module, DIMM and HBM technologies, and his PTAB work has involved memory and semiconductor patents. Firm and ranking profiles (Orrick, Chambers, IAM Patent 1000, Berkeley Law) describe him as a first-chair trial and appellate litigator rather than a prosecution attorney.

Side preference. The tracked docket shows one plaintiff-side and one defendant-side appearance — i.e., a genuinely two-sided practice, not a single-side specialist. The verifiable public record skews defense-side for technology operating companies: Orrick's team appears for Micron in Netlist's EDTX infringement actions and in Micron-related IPR proceedings, and Law360's attorney docket for Bobrow lists dozens of patent suits (StealthPath v. Zscaler, UMBRA v. Fortinet, and similar NPE/PAE-facing matters) in which his clients appear as defendants. The tracked Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. matter, where he is listed as lead counsel for Micron as plaintiff, shows he also takes the affirmative/prosecution posture for operating companies. I did not find independent confirmation of the specific role attributed to him in Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., so I would treat the "defendant" designation as tracker-reported rather than independently verified.

Firm context. He has been a partner at Orrick since May 2018, when he rejoined the firm to co-lead its global IP practice; he previously co-chaired the firm's global IP practice group and served on Orrick's management committee. Before that he spent roughly 25 years at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, where he was co-chair of the patent litigation practice. His first stint at Orrick was as an associate (roughly 1987–1993).

Notable matters and outcomes. Public reporting credits him with the Federal Circuit's venue-waiver ruling in Micron Technology, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (Fed. Cir. 2018), applying TC Heartland; the underlying case settled after claim construction in Delaware. Between the tracked case names, the most prominent public results are Netlist's $445 million May 2024 EDTX verdict against Micron (U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,619,912 and 11,093,417), on which Micron's post-trial motions were denied in June 2025, and the related $303 million 2023 Netlist verdict against Samsung. The Netlist litigation around these patents has been substantially reshaped by PTAB outcomes, including Federal Circuit affirmance of cancellation of at least one asserted patent.

PTAB / IPR. Yes — IPR is a listed practice area for him, and his firm bio cites "skillful handling of IPR and CBM proceedings." Public PTAB filings show him moving for pro hac vice admission as petitioner's counsel in Micron-related IPRs (e.g., IPR2024-00792, Micron v. Yangtze Memory); he is not a USPTO-registered practitioner, so he appears in those proceedings via pro hac vice admission alongside a registered lead counsel.

Bar and education. J.D., Columbia Law School (1986, Columbia Law Review); B.A., University of Washington (1983); law clerk to Hon. Charles P. Sifton (E.D.N.Y.), 1986–87. Admitted in California; also admitted to the Federal Circuit and Ninth and First Circuits and several federal district courts. He teaches patent litigation at UC Berkeley School of Law.

Note: the two-appearance tracker substantially understates his docket — Law360's attorney page alone lists roughly 40 patent matters for him — so the plaintiff/defendant counts above should be read as a thin sample.