Jared W. Newton

I'll research this attorney's background before drafting.

Let me verify the tracked case and a couple of specific outcomes.

Let me check the outcome of the tracked Abbott v. DexCom matter and confirm PTAB activity.

Jared W. Newton — patent litigation practice summary

Focus areas. Newton's practice is broad-based IP litigation rather than a single technical niche. Quinn Emanuel's own descriptions and his docket activity span medical devices and continuous glucose monitoring, semiconductors and displays, software/artificial intelligence, autonomous-vehicle technology, telecommunications (notably LTE), LED lighting, mechanical/consumer products (e.g., table saws), and radiotherapy systems. He also maintains an active Section 337 practice at the U.S. International Trade Commission and a trade secret practice under the DTSA. His only tracked appearance here — Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. DexCom, Inc. — sits squarely in the medical-device/CGM category, and is a fair if narrow sample of a much wider technology range. Note that the tracked dataset (one case) is very thin relative to the activity reflected in his firm bio and public filings; treat the single-appearance counts as illustrative, not comprehensive.

Side preference. The tracked data shows 0 plaintiff-side and 1 defendant-side appearance, with Newton as Lead Counsel for DexCom. That defense-side posture is consistent with the tracked matter but not with his overall profile: his firm bio states he represents plaintiffs and defendants, and his documented results include both patentee-side wins (e.g., a willful-infringement jury verdict for C.R. Bard) and defense wins (e.g., a non-infringement verdict for TVision). Public filings also show him appearing for corporate patentees in affirmative ANDA/IP disputes (e.g., Vifor Fresenius). In short, he is a both-sides litigator who is not an NPE/PAE-focused filer.

Firm context. Newton has been at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan since 2011, joining as a founding member of the firm's Washington, D.C. office and its Section 337/ITC practice. He is now a partner splitting time between the Washington office and Wilmington, Delaware, where he leads the firm's Delaware IP practice. No prior law-firm patent litigation employer was identified in available sources; his pre-Quinn Emanuel experience was at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office as a patent examiner (2005–2009) and a 2010 law clerkship at the ITC.

Notable matters, PTAB/IPR, and credentials. Beyond the tracked DexCom matter — in which the parties announced a global December 2024 settlement of all CGM patent disputes worldwide, including a 10-year standstill on patent, trade dress, and design litigation with no monetary payment — his reported results include: the Waymo v. Uber trade secret trial over autonomous-vehicle technology (mid-trial settlement valued at $245 million in Uber equity); a complete defense verdict for TVision in the Nielsen audience-measurement patent trial in Delaware (jury found non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,783,889); a willful-infringement verdict for C.R. Bard on vascular access port patents; a non-infringement verdict for Samsung on search/synchronization patents; summary judgment of invalidity for EIZO (affirmed by the Federal Circuit); exclusion orders for SawStop and findings of violation for Varian and Cree in Section 337 investigations; and an arbitration win for Hesai enforcing a license agreement plus $6.4 million in fees and costs. He appears regularly before the Federal Circuit (four argued appeals per his firm bio) and is an active PTAB practitioner — public PTAB records identify him as lead counsel for petitioners in IPR2023-01421/01422 (Hesai v. Ouster) and IPR2019-00127 (Canon), among others. He is registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 65,818) and admitted in Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia; he holds a J.D. with honors from The George Washington University Law School (2010) and a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Virginia Tech (2005).