Our People
Johnson Kuncheria

Johnson Kuncheria

650-335-4919
jkuncheria@fenwick.com
Counsel
Litigation
Office

Silicon Valley

Johnson
Kuncheria

Johnson
Kuncheria

Johnson
Kuncheria

Counsel
Litigation
Office

Silicon Valley

Education & Admissions

J.D., magna cum laude, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law

B.S., high honors, Electrical Engineering
The University of Texas at Austin

Admitted to practice in California and Texas

Admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Admitted to practice before all U.S. District Courts in California and Texas, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth, Ninth and Federal Circuits​​​

Johnson advises technology and life sciences companies on intellectual property matters, with a focus on patent litigation. He has handled patent disputes in multiple jurisdictions across the country, including Texas, California, Delaware, Florida and the Federal Circuit. His experience spans a broad range of technologies, such as electrical and computer engineering, wireless communications technologies, networking, software and medical devices.

Recognized as a Texas Rising Star in Intellectual Property (Thomson Reuters, 2016 – 2019), Johnson has experience with all aspects of litigation, including pretrial discovery, pleadings, infringement investigations, invalidity analysis, claim construction, motion practice, depositions, summary judgment and trial witness preparation. He also represents clients in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Additionally, Johnson’s experience includes patent prosecution and technology transfers.

Prior to joining Fenwick, Johnson was a patent attorney at a prominent international law firm.

While attending law school, Johnson was an associate Texas survey editor of the SMU Law Review and a teaching assistant for the legal research, writing and advocacy program for first year law students. He also served as an extern to the SMU Legal Affairs Office. Prior to law school, Johnson worked as an electrical engineer developing integrated aircraft computer systems under defense contracts for the U.S. Air Force. He also facilitated scientific research for the U.S. Navy and developed embedded software systems for enterprise servers at IBM.

Read more

  • Intellectual Ventures I and II v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (D. Del.)—summary judgment of non-infringement for multiple wireless telecommunications providers in a case involving 12 patents-in-suit accusing LTE cellular communications technology
  • BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (N.D. Tex.)—representation of AT&T in a patent infringement action involving Internet content filtering technology
  • Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of AT&T Mobility in a patent infringement action involving LTE cellular communication technology
  • Teleconference Systems LLC v. Genband, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)—representation of Genband in patent infringement action involving videoconferencing technology
  • EMG Tech., LLC v. Fluor Corp. (E.D. Tex.)—defense of Fluor Corporation in patent infringement action involving mobile Internet technology
  • Adaptix, Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd. (N.D. Cal.)—defense of BlackBerry in a patent infringement action involving LTE cellular communication technology
  • Clear with Computers, LLC v. Fishing Holdings, LLC (E.D. Tex.)—defense of Manitowoc Cranes in a patent infringement action involving customized sales proposal systems
  • Cell and Network Selection LLC v. BlackBerry Corp. (E.D. Tex.)—defense of BlackBerry in a patent infringement action involving cellular communication technology
  • Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—defense of Infineon in a patent infringement action involving semiconductor packaging technology
  • Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Blackberry Corp. (N.D. Tex.)—defense of Blackberry in a patent infringement action involving various messaging technologies
  • Unifi Scientific Batteries, LLC v. Research In Motion Corp. (E.D. Tex.)—defense of Research In Motion in a patent infringement actioninvolving battery charging technology
  • Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Research In Motion Corp. (S.D. Fla.)—defense of Research In Motion in a patent infringement action involving Bluetooth and messaging technology.
  • WiAV Networks, LLC v. Dell Inc. (N.D. Tex.)—defense of Research In Motion in a patent infringement action involving 802.11 Wi-Fi technology.
  • EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—defense of Stoke, Inc. in a patent infringement action involving various mobile access technologies.
  • Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin Int’l, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—assertion of Fujitsu’s patents relating to card type input/output interface devices.
  • Teleconference Systems, LLC v. AT&T Corp. (N.D. Cal.)—defense of AT&T in a patent infringement action involving videoconferencing technology.

​* Includes work from a previous firm​

  • Intellectual Ventures I and II v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (D. Del.)—summary judgment of non-infringement for multiple wireless telecommunications providers in a case involving 12 patents-in-suit accusing LTE cellular communications technology
  • BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (N.D. Tex.)—representation of AT&T in a patent infringement action involving Internet content filtering technology
  • Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of AT&T Mobility in a patent infringement action involving LTE cellular communication technology
  • Teleconference Systems LLC v. Genband, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)—representation of Genband in patent infringement action involving videoconferencing technology
  • EMG Tech., LLC v. Fluor Corp. (E.D. Tex.)—defense of Fluor Corporation in patent infringement action involving mobile Internet technology
  • Adaptix, Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd. (N.D. Cal.)—defense of BlackBerry in a patent infringement action involving LTE cellular communication technology
  • Clear with Computers, LLC v. Fishing Holdings, LLC (E.D. Tex.)—defense of Manitowoc Cranes in a patent infringement action involving customized sales proposal systems
  • Cell and Network Selection LLC v. BlackBerry Corp. (E.D. Tex.)—defense of BlackBerry in a patent infringement action involving cellular communication technology
  • Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—defense of Infineon in a patent infringement action involving semiconductor packaging technology
  • Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Blackberry Corp. (N.D. Tex.)—defense of Blackberry in a patent infringement action involving various messaging technologies
  • Unifi Scientific Batteries, LLC v. Research In Motion Corp. (E.D. Tex.)—defense of Research In Motion in a patent infringement actioninvolving battery charging technology
  • Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Research In Motion Corp. (S.D. Fla.)—defense of Research In Motion in a patent infringement action involving Bluetooth and messaging technology.
  • WiAV Networks, LLC v. Dell Inc. (N.D. Tex.)—defense of Research In Motion in a patent infringement action involving 802.11 Wi-Fi technology.
  • EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—defense of Stoke, Inc. in a patent infringement action involving various mobile access technologies.
  • Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin Int’l, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—assertion of Fujitsu’s patents relating to card type input/output interface devices.
  • Teleconference Systems, LLC v. AT&T Corp. (N.D. Cal.)—defense of AT&T in a patent infringement action involving videoconferencing technology.

​* Includes work from a previous firm​

  • The Scope of Permissible Joinder in Inter Partes Review Proceedings, PTAB Trials Report, June 2015
  • IP Report August 2010, August 2010
  • Note, Trademark Law—Determining a Likelihood of Confusion—The Southern District of New York Improperly Denies Preliminary Injunction Due to Its Misconstruction of the Relevant Standard and Misapplication of the Polaroid Factors, 73 J. Air L. & Com. 97, 2008

  • The Scope of Permissible Joinder in Inter Partes Review Proceedings, PTAB Trials Report, June 2015
  • IP Report August 2010, August 2010
  • Note, Trademark Law—Determining a Likelihood of Confusion—The Southern District of New York Improperly Denies Preliminary Injunction Due to Its Misconstruction of the Relevant Standard and Misapplication of the Polaroid Factors, 73 J. Air L. & Com. 97, 2008