Jason Charkow

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me dig into outcomes and the firm.

Let me check his firm bio and additional case details.

Jason S. Charkow — Daignault Iyer LLP (Vienna, VA)

Practice focus. Charkow's patent litigation practice centers on electronics and wireless technology. The recurring subject matter across his docket is RF signal processing and down-conversion (the ParkerVision patent family), semiconductors and chipset makers (Realtek, AMD, Texas Instruments, NXP, MediaTek, Samsung), touch/gesture sensing (Tactual Labs), and consumer hardware and printing (Slingshot Printing v. HP). Nothing in the public record ties him to pharma, life sciences, or mechanical arts.

Side preference. He is a plaintiff-side / patent-owner enforcer. The authoritative case list here records a single appearance, on the plaintiff side as lead counsel — but that figure substantially understates the public record. Law360's firm pages show roughly 41 matters under his name at Daignault Iyer plus four earlier matters at Goldberg Segalla, and the PTAB and district court filings behind them are overwhelmingly patent-owner representations: ParkerVision, Inc., Tactual Labs IP LLC, DoDots Licensing Solutions, and Slingshot Printing LLC. He does also appear for non-party witnesses in competitor litigation (e.g., the Realtek and MediaTek matters in W.D. Tex.), but he is not a defense-side operating-company litigator in the ordinary sense.

Firm context and notable matters. Charkow is a partner at Daignault Iyer, the Vienna, Virginia boutique founded by Ronald M. Daignault and Chandran B. Iyer. He previously practiced at Goldberg Segalla LLP in New York, where he and the same Iyer/Daignault team handled ParkerVision and Slingshot Printing work before the boutique was formed. His most prominent role is as a core member of the ParkerVision enforcement team: he argued two Federal Circuit appeals for ParkerVision — ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal, No. 22-2173, and ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., No. 23-1415 — both of which were affirmed without opinion under Rule 36 in May and June 2024, an unfavorable result for his client. That Rule 36 practice became the subject of ParkerVision's cert petition (No. 24-518), which was denied; Charkow is not listed as counsel on the petition. He also represents ParkerVision in the active W.D. Tex. campaign against Realtek, MediaTek, TI, and NXP.

PTAB / IPR experience. This is substantial and appears to be a core part of his practice. He has served as lead or back-up counsel in numerous AIA proceedings, including IPR2020-01086 and IPR2020-01302 (ParkerVision as patent owner, against Intel), IPR2021-00346, IPR2021-00990, IPR2022-00245, the IPR2024-00934/00935/00936 and IPR2024-01066/01068 sets (TI and NXP v. ParkerVision, where he handled a Director Review request), MediaTek's IPR2024-00796, and the Apple v. DoDots Licensing IPRs (IPR2023-00937/00938/00939, IPR2024-00145) on the patent-owner side. His PTAB work is weighted toward defending patent owners rather than filing petitions.

Bar and education. Admitted to the New York bar in 2003 (registration No. 4096954); registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 46,418). Court filings consistently note he is not admitted in Virginia and appears pro hac vice. A New York court-registry aggregator lists Hofstra University as his law school; I could not corroborate that from a firm bio or other primary source, so treat it as unverified.