Jason Zucchi is a trial lawyer specializing in complex intellectual property litigation. With nearly two decades of experience, Jason has successfully litigated high-stakes patent infringement and trade secret cases. His efforts have led to substantial damages awards for his clients, protecting their intellectual property rights and shaping patent law in the process.

Jason has represented clients of all sizes, ranging from Fortune 100 companies to innovate startups, in venues federal and state courts nationwide. He also has extensive experience in post-grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where he adeptly coordinates those matters with concurrent district court litigations.

In addition to his litigation practice, Jason excels at IP due diligence, licensing, and patent portfolio development, offering strategic advance to emerging businesses seeking to commercialize and protect their innovations. His expertise covers a broad spectrum of technologies, including medical devices, electronics, telecommunications, and life sciences.

Known for his creative approach to litigation, Jason focuses on the critical issues that most significantly impact case outcomes. His ability to clearly and effectively communicate complex legal theories and technologies makes him a formidable advocate before judges and juries. With his skills and experience, Jason has compiled an impressive record of success in contentious legal battles.

Before joining Avantech, Jason spent nearly two decades at Fish & Richardson, where he specialized in intellectual property and technology litigation.

J.D. University of Minnesota Law School (2007), Graduated magna cum laude, Note and Comment Editor of University of Law Review

B.S. Behavioral Sciences, Law and Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (2002)

• Minnesota
• U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
• U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
• U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

The Best Lawyers in America© List (2024-2025)

(E.D. Pa.) – Represented plaintiff in a patent case against a large medical device company involving spinal implants and implantation tools.

(D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff in a patent case against a large medical device company involving methods of designing custom knee implants. Successfully settled the case after obtaining favorable summary judgment rulings.

(D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff in a patent case against an automotive manufacturer and supplier in a long-running dispute involving tire pressure monitoring systems. A jury found the defendant liable for induced and contributory infringement and awarded damages.

(E.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiff in a patent case against a large medical device company involving spinal implantation systems. A jury found the defendant liable for willful infringement and awarded damages.

(D. Nev.) – Represented plaintiff in a patent case against an electronics manufacturer and supplier in a long-running dispute involving packages for surface-mount transformers. A jury found the defendant liable for willful infringement and awarded damages. The court later awarded the plaintiff a permanent injunction. The Supreme Court ultimately set a new standard for enhanced damages based on the case.

(D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff in a patent case against a medical device company involving point-of-care cell separation technology. Successfully settled the case after winning key claim construction rulings.

(D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff in a patent case against a medical device company involving craniofacial implants. Successfully settled the case with defendant after obtaining favorable rulings.

(D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff in a patent case against a navigation company involving computerized traffic routing systems. Successfully settled the case with defendant after obtaining favorable pre-trial rulings.

(D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff in a patent case against several cellular telephone companies involving third-party payment systems. Successfully settled the case with all defendants after obtaining favorable claim construction and pre-trial rulings.

(D. Colo.) – Represented plaintiff in a patent case against a medical device company involving methods of designing custom implants and other medical devices. Successfully settled the case after obtaining favorable rulings.

(D. Minn.) – Represented plaintiff in a breach of contract case against medical device company involving stem-cell research. Successfully obtained a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

(D. New Jersey) – Represented defendant in a patent case against an electronics company involving Ethernet connectors. After an invalidity trial that resulted in a hung jury, the defendant obtained a favorable cross-license for its patents in a co-pending case.

(D. Minn.) – Represented defendant in series of patent infringement cases against a vehicle manufacturer and supplier related to off-road vehicles. Successfully settled the case after winning several key rulings.

(E.D. Texas) – Represented defendant in a multi-patent infringement case related to multi-display systems. Successfully settled the case after six months of litigation.

(D. Del.) – Represented defendant in a multi-patent infringement case related to Quick Response Codes in product packaging. Successfully settled the case after two months of litigation.

(E.D. Texas) – Represented defendant in a patent infringement case related to blowers for the offshore drilling rig industry. Successfully vacated an injunction after obtaining a favorable PTAB ruling.

Represented petitioner in several inter partes reviews against a medical device company involving patents covering continuous positive airway pressure masks and devices. Successfully settled the IPRs after obtaining several favorable rulings.

Represented respondent in several IPRs filed by a large automotive supply manufacturer during a co-pending district court litigation. Successfully settled the litigation after obtaining a favorable PTAB ruling.

Represented respondent in a several IPRs during a co-pending district court litigation. Obtained a favorable PTAB ruling and, once the litigation resumed, a jury found the petitioner liable for infringement and awarded damages.