Jason T. Lao

I'll research this attorney before writing the summary.

Let me dig into the specific cases and PTAB activity.

More searches on specific cases and PTAB activity.

Jason T. Lao — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Jason T. Lao is a partner in Haynes Boone's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group, based in the firm's Orange County (Costa Mesa) office and also listed in San Francisco. His practice centers on patent infringement, trade secret, licensing, trademark, and copyright litigation in federal and state courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. His technology focus, per the firm's own practice description, spans wireless communications and standards patents, RF/semiconductor devices, smart meters, trusted computing, digital rights management, satellite technology, virtual machines, cybersecurity, biotech, automotive, and AI. Consistent with that, his tracked patent matters involve RF module and multi-layer substrate technology (Murata) and authentication/cryptographic security technology (mSIGNIA).

Side preference. The tracked docket skews defense-side — 2 of 2 appearances are as defendant's counsel — and the firm bio describes him as a first-chair trial lawyer who "leads trial teams on both the plaintiff and defense side," so the sample understates his plaintiff-side work. He has in fact represented patent owners, including mSIGNIA, Inc. as plaintiff in mSIGNIA v. InAuth (C.D. Cal. 8:17-cv-01289), where he served as district court counsel and appeared pro hac vice before the PTAB. He works for operating companies as both defendant (Murata) and plaintiff (mSIGNIA, Panasonic), rather than for NPEs/PAEs.

Case list and outcomes. His most prominent tracked matter is Modulus Systems, LLC v. Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00220, Judge Gilstrap), a non-practicing-entity suit over U.S. Patent 8,610,573 ("Radio Frequency Module"), in which he was defense counsel and which terminated as dismissed-settled on January 30, 2024. The second tracked entry is captioned only as an untitled lead-counsel matter; the available record strongly indicates it is Georgia Tech Research Corporation v. Murata Electronics North America, Inc. and Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (N.D. Ga. 1:24-cv-05268), the LCP-substrate patent dispute in which Lao is identified as Murata's litigation counsel. In that case, defendants' IPR petitions (IPR2025-00383/-00384) were denied institution by the Acting Director on July 29, 2025 on discretionary/workload grounds (not the merits), mooting the motion to stay. On the plaintiff side, he represented mSIGNIA in mSIGNIA v. InAuth (an American Express subsidiary), a device-authentication case that went to claim construction and discovery litigation before the parties' dispute resolved; I could not verify a jury verdict or Federal Circuit decision in any of these matters from the sources reviewed.

PTAB / IPR experience. He does appear in post-grant proceedings, though not as a registered practitioner of record in the ordinary case: in InAuth, Inc. v. mSIGNIA, Inc., IPR2018-00150 (U.S. Patent 9,559,852), he was admitted pro hac vice for the patent owner; the Board denied institution on May 10, 2018 — a win for his client. His firm (Haynes Boone) also represented Murata as petitioner in the 2025 GTRC IPRs. This is not enough to characterize him as a routine IPR lead.

Bar and education. Admitted in California (2012); J.D., New York University School of Law; M.S., Computer Information Systems, University of Michigan; B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. Court admissions include the Central, Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California, the Eastern District of Texas, the Federal Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit.

Note on sourcing: Biographical and practice details are drawn from Haynes Boone's own attorney page and firm press releases (2021 partner class, Patexia 2025 rankings) and from court/PTAB filings. The identification of the untitled tracked matter as the GTRC case is an inference from the filings, not a confirmed docket match, and no verifiable trial verdict or settlement amount is reported for these matters.