Douglas E. Olson concentrates his practice in the area of intellectual property litigation. Mr. Olson has represented clients in over a hundred matters filed in federal and state court. Over 40 of those cases have gone to trial and 15 of those cases were jury trials which were tried to verdict.

Mr. Olson has made numerous appellate arguments at the circuit courts of appeals, including the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and other federal courts of appeal. He has also made appellate arguments and prosecuted applications at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the European Patent Office.

Mr. Olson has been included in The Best Lawyers in America listing, selected by a vote of his peers, and he has repeatedly been named to The Best Lawyers in San Diego list by San Diego Magazine. Mr. Olson is experienced in representing San Diego start-up companies and was profiled in the Business Section of The San Diego Union Tribune. He was recognized as a California Rainmaker by the Daily Journal based on a statewide survey of law firms.

Mr. Olson has published a number of articles relating to intellectual property law and is the author of the chapter on Trade Secret Evidence in the California Continuing Education of the Bar book, Proof in Competitive Business Litigation. He has also been a frequent lecturer regarding various topics in intellectual property law, including a speech to the Patent Examiners of the United States Patent Office regarding Examiner depositions. He has made presentations to the combined Orange County and San Diego Intellectual Property Law Associations regarding Willful Infringement and the Doctrine of Equivalents.

Mr. Olson is a graduate of The George Washington University Law School, where he was a member of the Law Review and elected to the Order of the Coif, and a graduate of the University of Wisconsin (B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering).

Areas Of Practice

Intellectual Property Litigation

Representative Matters

Autobytel, Inc. v. Dealix Corporation. Mr. Olson was lead counsel for a team of lawyers that enforced an e-commerce patent for the sale of automobiles over the internet. The case settled during trial with a substantial eight figure payment by Dealix.
AutoNation v. DriveTime. Mr. Olson was lead counsel in this case, which involved ownership of GO trademarks used in the sale of automobiles. DriveTime was successful in obtaining dismissal of a suit filed by AutoNation in Denver. That case was transferred to Phoenix where DriveTime had previously sued AutoNation. The case then settled with a result the client found favorable, permitting DriveTime to use GO in Denver.
Nichols Institute Diagnostics, Inc. v. Scantibodies Clinical Laboratory, Inc., et. al. In August 2005, Mr. Olson obtained a jury verdict and favorable decisions in post trial motions to enforce a patent relating to detection of biologically active hPTH to monitor calcium levels. The patent was held infringed and valid over the prior art and enforceable.
Mr. Olson represented a major semiconductor manufacturer in a group of cases filed in California Federal and State Courts and the International Trade Commission. Those cases involved fourteen patents and numerous trade secrets covering a variety of semiconductor fabrication processes, SRAM designs and related technologies. The cases all settled with results that Mr. Olson's client found favorable.
Amazon v Cendant. Mr. Olson was lead counsel in a patent infringement suit brought by Amazon on four of its e-commerce patents. Mr. Olson was successful in transferring the case from Amazon's hometown, Seattle to Wilmington, Delaware. The case never settled, allowing Cendant to continue its activities.
Monsanto v. Mycogen. This case was filed in the District of Delaware by Monsanto to enforce its synthetic corn gene patent against the transgenic corn products of Mr. Olson's client Mycogen. Mr. Olson was lead counsel in a jury trial which resulted in a verdict that held the Monsanto patent invalid and not infringed by Mycogen.
Center for Neurologic Study v. The Gen-Probe Inc. The Center for Neurologic Study brought suit in the Superior Court in San Diego, California seeking ownership of Gen-Probe's key patents on genetic probe testing and Gen-Probe's profits based on those patents. The case was tried to a jury by Mr. Olson as lead counsel. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Gen-Probe.
The University of California v. GenProbe. In this case, the University of California brought a suit against GenProbe alleging that a university professor was a co-inventor on GenProbe's key genetic probe patents and seeking ownership rights for the University of California. Mr. Olson was lead counsel in this case, which was tried to a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. A jury verdict was entered in favor of Mr. Olson's client, GenProbe, rejecting all of the University's claims.
Amersham v. Perkins-Elmer. Mr. Olson was lead counsel for Amersham in a series of cases involving the reagents and instruments for sequencing the human genome. Mr. Olson obtained a favorable Markman claim interpretation, which made it possible to win a summary judgment of infringement of Amersham patents by Perkin-Elmer. The case subsequently settled on terms favorable to Amersham.
Syntiobics v. Agen. Mr. Olson was lead counsel in this case, which involved a diagnostic assay using monoclonal antibodies. After Synbiotics obtained a temporary restraining order and a favorable Markman ruling, the case settled on a basis favorable to Synbiotics, including up front payments and percentage payments based upon sales.
Pullman v. Columbia Nitrogen Corporation. Mr. Olson was co-lead counsel in this case, which involved a claim that Mr. Olson's clients, the Fluor and Braun Engineering Companies, infringed Pullman's patent relating to ammonia plants. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court in Augusta, Georgia. After a three month jury trial, the jury returned a verdict that the Pullman patent was invalid and had been obtained by inequitable conduct.
Ixsys v. Stratagene. Ixsys brought suit against Mr. Olson's client Stratagene to obtain title to patent rights developed in collaboration with the Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation. Stratagene accused Ixsys of misappropriation of trade secrets. Mr. Olson was lead counsel in a jury trial in the Superior Court for San Diego, California. After two months of trial, the parties settled on a basis which was favorable to Mr. Olson's client and which preserved the ownership of patents for Mr. Olson's client.
BS&B v. Smalling. Mr. Olson was lead counsel for BS&B in a jury trial involving the claim by BS&B that Smalling had misappropriated trade secrets. The case was tried to a jury in the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City. After the court declared a hung jury, there was an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which resulted in a favorable decision for Mr. Olson's client. (Black, Sivalis & Bryson, Inc. v. Keystone Steel Fabrication, 584 F.2d 946.)
Staar v. Microtech. In this case, Staar accused Microtech of misappropriating trade secrets. As lead counsel, Mr. Olson successfully argued a Summary Judgment Motion and obtained a judgment that Staar's claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit and Mr. Olson successfully argued that the Summary Judgment had been properly granted (Staar Surgical Co. v. Microtech Surgical Assocs., 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 1079).
ECC v Raychem. ECC brought suit against Raychem alleging that it infringed ECC's patent relating to polymer compositions. Mr. Olson was lead counsel in the trial in the U.S. District Court in Boston, Massachusetts. The court entered a directed verdict in favor of Mr. Olson's client at the close of the plaintiff's case.
Kuster v. Box. This suit was brought against Mr. Olson's client seeking a declaration of patent invalidity. The case was tried to a jury in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, California with Mr. Olson as lead counsel. After the close of evidence there was a settlement upholding the validity of the patent.
Copelands' v. CNV. Mr. Olson was lead counsel in patent office proceedings to cancel the registration of the trademark Vuarnet, for sunglasses, on the basis that it had been obtained by fraud. After an unfavorable summary judgment in the patent office, Mr. Olson's client took an appeal to the Federal Circuit. Mr. Olson wrote the brief and successfully argued the appeal that reversed the Patent Office decision. (Copelands' Enterprises v. CNV, Inc., 945 F.2d 1563 (1991)).
Other jury trials which Mr. Olson has had a significant role include Perkin-Elmer v. Computer Vision, tried in the Northern District of California; Monsanto v. Mycogen, tried in the District Court of Delaware; Infigen v. ACT, tried in the U.S. District Court in Madison, Wisconsin; Allergan v. Star, tried in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, California; and Mycogen v. Monsanto, tried in the U.S. District Court for Delaware.
Mr. Olson has obtained consent judgments that his clients' patents were valid and infringed without the necessity of proceeding with a trial in many cases, including: GenProbe v. Molecular Biosystems, Inc., in the Southern District of California; GenProbe v. Microprobe, in the Southern District of California; Nobelpharma v. Core-Vent, in the Central District of California; The University of California and IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. v. Symbiotics Corporation, in the Southern District of California; and Infigen v. ACT, in the U.S. District Court in Madison, Wisconsin.

Admissions

California
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Education

George Washington University Law School, LL.B., 1965

Law Review

University of Wisconsin, M.S., 1960
University of Wisconsin, B.S., 1959

Experience

Duane Morris LLP
- Partner, 2008-present
Paul Hastings
- Partner, 2003-2008
Brobeck
- Partner, 2000-2003
Lyon & Lyon
- Partner, 1970-2000
Proctor & Gamble
- Process Engineer, 1960-1962