- Email: Josh.Curry@lewisbrisbois.com
- Phone: 404.567.6565
- Fax: 404.467.8845
Josh Curry is a partner in the Atlanta office of Lewis Brisbois and a member of the Intellectual Property & Technology Practice. Josh has served as lead counsel in patent, intellectual property, and technology litigation cases and is a registered patent attorney. An experienced litigator with a science degree and considerable technical expertise, Josh helps clients effectively achieve their business goals when enforcing and defending their IP rights. He has experience in all phases of IP litigation and has represented both large and small clients from a variety of industries in cases and matters across a wide range of technologies in courts and proceedings throughout the United States.
Josh’s national practice covers all aspects of IP litigation and counseling, with a particular emphasis on technology-related matters involving patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. He has litigated cases in federal courts across the country from New York to California including multi-district litigation (MDL) matters, and cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), International Trade Commission (ITC), and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Josh is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He also litigates cybersecurity and data privacy cases, including under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), Stored Communications Act (SCA), and other statutory regimes.
Josh has a physics degree and considerable technical expertise, particularly in the computer software and hardware, digital security, and encryption areas. His litigation experience is wide-ranging, including the following technologies and industries: communications systems, computer hardware and software, consumer products, e-commerce, electro-mechanical, electronics, encryption, enterprise software and systems, financial technology and banking, Internet and website, LED, manufacturing equipment and processes, mobile phones and portable electronic devices, payments, pharmaceuticals (including Hatch-Waxman litigation), and wired and wireless networking.
Recognized in the area of IP litigation by Georgia Super Lawyers in 2016, 2017, and 2018 as a “Rising Star” and by Georgia Trend as one of Georgia’s “Legal Elite” in 2017 and 2018, Josh is regularly published and invited to speak on IP topics. He is active in business, industry and community groups, and he dedicates a portion of his practice to pro bono matters.
Before entering private practice, Josh was a law clerk for Magistrate Judge Elizabeth M. Timothy of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida and, during law school, he interned for Justice Harry Lee Anstead of the Supreme Court of Florida and in the State Attorney’s Office for the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
Related Legal Alerts
- September 04, 2018 One-Year Time Bar to File an IPR Begins on Date Complaint Served Regardless of Post-Service Activities
- July 23, 2018 Tribal Sovereign Immunity Cannot Bar IPR Review: Federal Circuit
- June 26, 2018 Supreme Court Finds Patent Owners Can Recover Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement
- April 26, 2018 Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Inter Partes Reviews
- “Spokeo One Year Later: Courts Split Over Whether Identity Theft Risk Confers Standing After Data Breach,” Bloomberg Law, August 10, 2017
- “Expanded Means-Plus-Function Analysis Presents New Opportunities and Challenges,” The Intellectual Property Strategist, December 7, 2016
- “Patent Exhaustion Dispute Likely Headed for the Supreme Court,” Landslide, a publication of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 8, No. 6, July/August 2016
- “International Patent Exhaustion and Postsale Restrictions,” Intellectual Property Litigation, a publication of the ABA Section of Litigation, Vol. 27, No. 1, Fall 2015
- “Opinion Letters, Representation Issues, and the Impact of the Seagate and Knorr-Bremse Decisions,” PLI’s Patent Litigation 2010 Course Handbook #24179, 2010
- “Best Practices for Using Experts When Trial Time is Tight,” Partnering Perspectives, Summer 2010
- “Claim Construction: Does the Federal Circuit Have the Last Word?,” ITC Trial Lawyers Association’s 337 Reporter, Volume XXVI, Summer 2009
- “Opinion Letters, Representative Issues and the Impact of the Knorr-Bremse and Seagate Decisions,” PLI’s Patent Litigation, 2008
- “Practical Application of Post-KSR Obviousness Standards in Patent Litigation and Prosecution,” Spring Posium Intellectual Property CLE Conference, May 2008
- “Prowling Patent Trolls,” Public Power, September 2006
Pro Bono & Philanthropy
Vice Chairman of the Board of Advisors, Florida State University World Affairs Program
- “Recent IP Cases and Real-World Implications for In-House Counsel,” Georgia State University Corporate Intellectual Property Institute, October 2018 (forthcoming)
- “The Current State of Venue in Patent Cases,” Georgia Bar Association, November 2017
- “2017-18 US Supreme Court Patent and IP Decisions,” Georgia State University Corporate Intellectual Property Institute, November 2017
- “2017-18 US Supreme Court Patent and IP Decisions,” American Bar Association IP West, October 2017
- “Cybersecurity, Patents, and IP: A Role Play Simulation to Discuss Strategies and Best Practices”, Patents for Financial Services Summit, July 2017
- “Strategies for Complex Adversarial Proceedings at the PTAB/PTO”, Georgia Bar Association, February 2017
- “Defending Patent Infringement Allegations and Monetizing Financial Technology”, Patents for Financial Services Summit, July 2016
- “Exhaustion and First-Sale in Patent and Copyright Cases”, Georgia State University Corporate Intellectual Property Institute, October 2015
- “Best Practices in ITC Section 337 Investigations”, National Asian American Bar Association National Convention, November 2011
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Supreme Court of the United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
U.S. International Trade Commission
- American Bar Association
- Section of Intellectual Property Law
- Section of Litigation
- State Bar of Georgia
- Intellectual Property Section
- Privacy & Technology Section
- Patent Committee Member
- The Florida Bar
- The Atlanta Intellectual Property American Inn of Court
- Intellectual Property Owners Association
- Litigation Committee Member
Awards & Honors
- Legal Elite in Intellectual Property, Georgia Trend, 2017
- Rising Star in Intellectual Property Litigation, Georgia Super Lawyers, 2016 to 2018
University of Florida, Levin College of Law
Juris Doctor, cum laude, Order of the Coif (top 10%), 2006
- Certificate in Intellectual Property Law
- University of Florida Law Review
- University of Florida Moot Court Team
Florida State University
Bachelor of Arts in Physics and Government, cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 2003
- Masterbuilt Manufacturing, Inc. v. [Client] (M.D. Ga.): Defending the world’s largest retailer against patent infringement claims concerning electric turkey fryer products. Case resolved favorably after we defeated Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
- LovePop, Inc. v. PaperPopCards, Inc. (D. Mass.): Defending pop-up greeting card company in copyright case concerning 3D pop-up greeting cards.
- StrikeForce Technologies v. [Client] (D. Mass.): Defending international data security and encryption company in a competitor-vs.-competitor patent case involving multifactor/two-factor authentication products. Opposing counsel Ropes and Gray.
- St. Luke Technologies v. [Client] (E.D. Tex.): Defending international data security and encryption company in patent case involving enterprise encryption key management and secure content delivery systems. Case resolved favorably based on early motion practice.
- Maxim Integrated Products v. BBVA Compass Bank (W.D. Tex.): Defending bank against claims of patent infringement claims involving systems for encrypting mobile financial transactions (e.g., money transfer, bill pay, remote deposit), smartphone security hardware/software, and backend server security infrastructure. Case resolved favorably after our early summary judgment motion was fully briefed and ready for decision.
- Covered business method review (CBM) for BBVA Compass Bank (PTAB): Representing bank in three CBMs challenging validity of patents for encrypting mobile financial transactions. Proceedings resolved favorably.
- Mission Abstract Data v. Cumulus (D. Del.): Representing radio company against claims of patent infringement claims relating to radio automation technology. Case resolved favorably after successful Patent Office reexamination petitions.
- Maxim Integrated Products v. U.S. Bank, Bank of the West, and Comerica Bank (E.D. Tex. and MDL in W.D. Pa): Representing three banks in a 25-defendant patent multidistrict litigation (MDL) relating to systems for encrypting mobile financial transactions. Cases resolved favorably after fact discovery.
- Global Sessions v. TD Bank and Comerica Bank (W.D. Tex.): Defending banks against claims of patent infringement related to web system management and web sessions. Cases resolved favorably after filing inter partes review (IPR) petitions and Markman decision construing many terms in our clients’ favor.
- Inter partes review (IPR) for TD Bank (PTAB): Representing bank in four IPRs challenging patents relating to web system architecture and web session technology. Proceedings resolved favorably.
- Reefedge v. ADTRAN (D. Del.): Defending wireless network equipment manufacturer against infringement claims directed to seamless wireless roaming and related router/network infrastructure. Case resolved favorably after Markman briefing.
- Lo-Q v. QLess (S.D. Fla. and C.D. Cal.): Enforcing patents owned by a technology solutions provider to the leisure market covering wireless technology for automated reservations. Case resolved favorably.
- Pass & Seymour v. General Protecht Group (ITC, N.D.N.Y., and Fed. Cir.): Representing a non-US manufacturer of electric outlet protection devices (GFCIs). We took over as counsel after an administrative law judge (ALJ) at the International Trade Commission (ITC) entered an adverse infringement ruling against our client and obtained full reversal of all findings of patent infringement before the ITC and Federal Circuit, resulting in dismissal of all infringement claims against our client.
- General Protecht Group v. Leviton (D.N.M., N.D. Cal., ITC, and Fed. Cir.): Representing a non-US manufacturer of ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs) in a declaratory judgment action in New Mexico and related actions before the ITC, in California federal district court, and before the Federal Circuit. Obtained a preliminary injunction requiring the patent owner to dismiss patent claims at the ITC and elsewhere based on a prior settlement between the owner and our client. The Federal Circuit affirmed, resulting in complete dismissal with prejudice of all claims against our client.
- Lean Solutions v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (N.D. Ga.): Representing bank in a software copyright case in which we defeated a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of all claims – a complete victory for our client.
- Jordan Outdoor Enterprises cases: Successfully representing an outdoor/camouflage clothing and apparel company in its efforts to protect copyrights and trademarks, including several district court cases and proceedings.
- Ferring v. Meijer (S. Ct.): Authoring an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Intellectual Property Owners Association seeking Supreme Court review of an issue relating to the Federal Circuit’s appellate jurisdiction in patent-related antitrust cases.
- Biovail v. Watson Pharmaceuticals (S.D. Fla.): Representing Watson in a Hatch-Waxman case involving bupropion hydrobromide products (Aplenzin®).
- Shire v. Barr Laboratories (S.D.N.Y.): Representing Barr in Hatch-Waxman case involving lanthanum carbonate products (Fosrenol®).
- Teva carvedilol cases (D.N.J.): Representing Teva in several cases asserting patents involving carvedilol, a beta-blocker drug used to treat congestive heart failure.
- AstraZeneca v. Impax Laboratories (S.D.N.Y. and Fed. Cir.): Representing Impax and Teva in a Hatch-Waxman case relating to omeprazole products (Prilosec®), including appeals to the Federal Circuit.