Partner
J.P. Long, Ph.D., regularly draws from his expertise in physics, electrical engineering, and materials science to assist clients with various intellectual property matters involving high technology, including litigation, licensing, and patent portfolio management.
Much of J.P.'s practice involves litigation and client counseling. He has successfully represented clients in numerous forums, including federal district courts; the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC); the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), where he served as a law clerk; and in private arbitration. J.P. regularly advises clients on matters relating to licensing, standard-essential patents (SEPs), and patent prosecution.
Prior to law school, J.P. studied physics and conducted research for more than ten years, focusing on electronic and optical materials and devices. He has hands-on expertise with material growth techniques and equipment, device design and fabrication, and related characterization techniques. J.P. often serves clients in matters involving related technologies, including integrated circuits and semiconductors, material growth and processing, light emitting diodes (LEDs) and lighting, fiber optics, signal processing, wireless communications, digital imaging, power systems, consumer electronics, automotive electronics, and medical devices.
J.P. served four years as a professional lecturer in law at The George Washington University Law School. He volunteers a portion of his time to assisting disabled veterans in matters before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Represented Complainant Philips Lighting in an International Trade Commission investigation against Lowe’s, Feit Electric, and Satco, among others, on LED lighting technologies.
337-TA-1081, ITC, Judge Lord
Represented petitioner Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (TSMC) in six inter partes review proceedings that involved patents directed to semiconductor device structures. All six petitions were granted, and all of the challenged claims were cancelled in final written decisions.
IPR2016-01246, -01247, -01376, -01377, -01378, -01379, PTAB, Judges Arbes, Fitzpatrick, Chagnon
Represented LG Electronics in a litigation and ITC action concerning certain media technologies in smartphones and televisions, home theater systems, Blu-ray disc players, and tablets. Following trial, all four asserted patents were found not infringed and/or invalid.
337-TA-882, ITC, Judge Shaw
Represented Toyota in a patent infringement suit involving vehicular navigation systems; Successfully secured prompt dismissal and favorable settlement.
2:14-cv-01116, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
Filed an amicus brief on behalf of non-parties Toyota Motor Corporation, Honda Motor Company, Nissan Motor Company, DENSO Corporation, and Hyundai Motor Company in a Federal Circuit appeal involving issues related to standard-essential patents.
18-1363, -1380, -1382, -1732, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, Chen, Hughes
Obtained dismissal of patent infringement claims against client LG Electronics. The court found that the patent claims, which relate to Bluetooth technology, were directed to an abstract idea and therefore invalid.
5:18-cv-06738, N.D. Cal., Judge Koh
Arigna Technology Limited v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Achieved prominent wins for clients Volkswagen, Audi, Bentley, and Lamborghini by defending them against multiple allegations of patent infringement involving power electronics and power semiconductor structures at the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Eastern District of Texas, and by securing institution of inter partes reviews (IPRs) on patents at issue at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
337-TA-1267, ITC, Judge Bhattacharyya
IPR2021-01321, -01531, PTAB, Judges Baer, Fenick, Iftikhar
2:21-cv-00054; -00172, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
Carnegie Institution of Washington et al. v. Pure Grown Diamonds, Inc. et al.
1:20-cv-00189, S.D.N.Y., Judge Rakoff
Certain LED Lighting Devices, LED Power Supplies, and Components Thereof
Represented Complainant Philips Lighting in an International Trade Commission investigation against Lowe’s, Feit Electric, and Satco, among others, on LED lighting technologies.
337-TA-1081, ITC, Judge Lord
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Represented petitioner Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (TSMC) in six inter partes review proceedings that involved patents directed to semiconductor device structures. All six petitions were granted, and all of the challenged claims were cancelled in final written decisions.
IPR2016-01246, -01247, -01376, -01377, -01378, -01379, PTAB, Judges Arbes, Fitzpatrick, Chagnon
Represented LG Electronics in a litigation and ITC action concerning certain media technologies in smartphones and televisions, home theater systems, Blu-ray disc players, and tablets. Following trial, all four asserted patents were found not infringed and/or invalid.
337-TA-882, ITC, Judge Shaw
Manitto Technologies, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Corp.
2:14-cv-01116, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
Seminar
IP Strategy at the Crossroads: Technology, Enforcement, and Contracts IP Strategy at the Crossroads: Technology, Enforcement, and Contracts
May 15, 2026
Taipei
Seminar
Navigating Global Patent Litigation Shifts: Strategic Insights on Emerging Trends Across the US and Europe Navigating Global Patent Litigation Shifts: Strategic Insights on Emerging Trends Across the US and Europe
December 12, 2025
Taipei
Event
U.S. Patent Litigation and Licensing Workshop: Navigating the Latest Trends and Developments in IP Licensing, PTAB Proceedings and Patent Litigation U.S. Patent Litigation and Licensing Workshop: Navigating the Latest Trends and Developments in IP Licensing, PTAB Proceedings and Patent Litigation
June 14, 2024
Taipei
Articles
Is Hedonic Regression a Viable Damages Framework? The Federal Circuit Leaves this Question Open in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Is Hedonic Regression a Viable Damages Framework? The Federal Circuit Leaves this Question Open in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel
January 30, 2024
Webinar
Patent Damages and Valuation, Part II: Geographic Scope Patent Damages and Valuation, Part II: Geographic Scope
August 29, 2023
Webinar
Webinar
Patent Damages and Valuation, Part I: Value Apportionment Patent Damages and Valuation, Part I: Value Apportionment
August 15, 2023
Webinar
Commentary
CBP Clears Redesigned Innoscience Chips After ITC Case CBP Clears Redesigned Innoscience Chips After ITC Case
March 12, 2026
Law360Award/Ranking
Best Lawyers Recognizes 44 Finnegan Attorneys in its 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch Best Lawyers Recognizes 44 Finnegan Attorneys in its 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch
August 21, 2025
Best LawyersCommentary
The Top Patent Damages Awards of 2024 The Top Patent Damages Awards of 2024
December 19, 2024
Law360Commentary
Semiconductor Patents Rise but Enforcement Challenges Mount Semiconductor Patents Rise but Enforcement Challenges Mount
February 24, 2023
Managing Intellectual PropertyCommentary
Three Changes Challenging IP Semiconductor Counsel Three Changes Challenging IP Semiconductor Counsel
September 9, 2022
Managing Intellectual PropertyMedia Mention
Volkswagen Beats Fintiv Factors, Gets Review of Semiconductor Patent Volkswagen Beats Fintiv Factors, Gets Review of Semiconductor Patent
February 18, 2022
Westlaw TodayDue to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.