Jeffrey S. Love

Partner« back

  • J.D., University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), 1987
  • B.A. with Honors in Philosophy, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1984
  • Oregon, 1987
  • California, 1998
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal, Third, and Ninth Circuits
  • All U.S. District Courts in California
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • AV® Preeminent™ Martindale-Hubbell, Intellectual Property, established in 2003
  • 2007, 2008, 2010-2017 Oregon Super Lawyers®
  • 2012-2017, IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals



Mr. Love’s practice focuses primarily on patent litigation. He has represented parties in patent cases in federal district courts across the country, including California, Delaware, Florida, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington, and in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C.


Mr. Love joined Klarquist Sparkman, LLP in 2000. From 1987 to 2000, he practiced appellate and general civil litigation in Portland.

  • Board Member, U.S. District Court of Oregon Historical Society, 2008 – 2009
  • Member, Oregon State Bar Federal Practice and Procedure Committee, 2001 – 2005 (Chair, 2005)
  • Member, Executive Committee, Oregon State Bar Antitrust, Trade Regulation and Unfair Business Practices Section, 1998 – 2000

Mr. Love has represented parties in patent cases involving a wide variety of technologies, including the following cases (represented parties underlined):

  • Aristocrat v. International Game Technology, 5:06-cv-3717 (N.D. Cal.). Slot Machine Game and System with Improved Jackpot Feature.
  • Translogic Technology Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., 3:99-cv-0407 (D. Or.). Transmission Gate Series Multiplexer.
  • Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 3:12-cv-06467 (N.D. Cal.). Method and Apparatus for Resettable Memory.
  • Enpat v. General Electric Company, 6:08-cv-1895 (M.D. Fla.). AC Line Current Controller Utilizing Line Connected Inductance and DC Voltage Component.
  • Quito v. NBC Universal, News Corp., Hulu LLC, et al., 1:08-cv-23543 (S.D. Fla.). Personal Feedback Browser for Obtaining Media Files.
  • University of Washington v. General Electric Company, et al., 2:10-cv-01933 (W.D. Wash.). Apparatus and Method for Interactive 3D Registration of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Images Based on a Magnetic Position Sensor.
  • TAS Energy Inc. v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 3:12-cv-2777, (S.D. Cal.). System for chilling inlet air for gas turbines.
  • Walker Digital LLC v. Inc., et al., 11-cv-00313, 11-cv-00315, 11-cv-00320, 11-cv-00362, 11-cv-00369, et al. (D. Del.). Online business methods, such as system and method for Establishing and Managing Subscription Purchase Agreements.
  • BTG v. Inc., et al., 04-cv-1264 (D. Del.). Method and Apparatus for Tracking the Navigation Path of a User on the World Wide Web.
  • E-Data v. Inc., et al., 05-cv-4616 (S.D.N.Y.). System for Reproducing Information in Material Objects at a Point of Sale Location.
  • GPNE Corp. v. Inc., et al., 5:12-cv-03055 (N.D. Cal.). Data Display Software with Actions and Links Integrated with Information.
  • Tompkins v. Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-00081 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Sharing Sound v. Inc., Netflix Inc., GameStop Corp., et al., 2:10-cv-0155 (E.D. Tex.). Distribution of Musical Products by a Web Site Vendor Over the Internet.
  • Texas OCR Technologies, LLC v., Inc., Amazon Services, LLC, et al., 6:10-cv-00064 (E.D. Tex.). Methodology for Displaying Search Results Using Character Recognition.
  • DownUnder Wireless, LLC v. Inc., et. al., 2:09-cv-00365 (E.D. Tex.). Inverted Safety Antenna for Personal Communication Devices.
  • Welcome Company, Ltd. v. Inc., et al., 10-cv-00203 (C.D. Cal.). Hand-Held Electric Sealer with Detachable Heat Resistant Cover Sheet.
  • The Tobin Family Education and Health Foundation, et al v. Inc., 2:09-cv-00160 (M.D. Fla.). Method and System for Customizing Marketing Services on Networks Communicating with Hypertext Tagging Conventions.
  • Performance Pricing v. et al., 2:07-cv-0432 (E.D. Tex.). Method and Apparatus for a Cryptographically Assisted Commercial Network System Designed to Facilitate Buyer-driven Conditional Purchase Offers.
  • Select Retrieval, LLC v. Costco, Nordstrom, Inc., Oakley, Inc., et al., 3:11-cv-01104 (D. Or.). Data Display Software with Actions and Links Integrated with Information.
  • Cellectricon AB v. Fluxion Biosciences, Inc., 5:09-cv-03150 (N.D. Cal.). Microfluidic Stricture and Process for its Manufacture.
  • Optimize Technology Solutions, LLC v. Dillard’s, Inc.,, Inc., Recreational Equipment, Inc., Staples, Inc. et al., 2:11-cv-00419 (E.D. Tex.). Method, Memory, Product, and Code for Displaying Pre-Customized Content Associated with Visitor Data.
  • O’Keeffe’s, Inc. v. Technical Glass Products, et al., 07-cv-03535 (N.D. Cal.). Fire Resistant Safety Glass.
  • Schumer v. Wacom, 99-cv-0474 (D. Wash.). Digitizer Interface.
  • “Responding to the Patent Troll Lawsuit” (General Counsel Forum, Seattle, Washington, March 19, 2008)
  • “Using PTO Re-examinations to Trump a Court Judgment,” presentation during a seminar on “Pre-Complaint & Post-Trial Patent Litigation Strategies” (Law Seminars International, Seattle, Washington, July 11, 2006)