Due to the increasing cost of Ph.D. students, decreasing federal funding, and current size of the ACE Lab, Prof. Wobbrock will not be taking new Ph.D. students until further notice.
UNIVERSITY of  WASHINGTON • Information School • Computer Science & Engineering
Jacob O. Wobbrock Professor, The Information School
By courtesy, Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering
  Jacob O. Wobbrock, Ph.D.
The Information School
University of Washington
Box 352840
Seattle, WA 98195-2840   USA

Home

Biography & CV

Publications

Teaching

Videos

Press

Software

Industry

Expert Witness

HCI @ UW
 
 

Expert Witness for User Interface Technology

Areas of Expertise:   User interfaces, user interface technology, user interface design, input devices, input techniques, interaction techniques, text entry methods, mouse input, touch input, pen input, gesture input, gesture recognition, touch screens, smartphones, tablets, tabletops, interactive surfaces, mobile devices, mobile user interfaces, mobile computing, virtual reality (VR), assistive technologies, accessible computing, and human-centered AI.

Experience:   I have completed work as an expert witness on 22 intellectual property cases related to patent infringement and validity in the field of user interface technology. I have filed numerous expert reports and IPR declarations, presented at one Markman claim construction hearing, testified before U.S. Customs & Border Protection, been interviewed by Patent Examiners, been deposed 13 times, testified at trial twice in the U.S. ITC, and testified at trial once in U.S. District Court.

I am a co-author on 19 issued patents and over 250 academic papers. My work has been cited over 31,000 times.

You can also read my bio or see my curriculum vitae (PDF).

No.  

Dates

Parties

Patents

Venue

Firm

Topics

Activities
22 April 2026 –
July 2026		 Tactual Labs* v. Samsung 9,507,500
9,632,615
10,222,952		 U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division Daignault Iyer Pen input, predictive input, input latency, speech recognition.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on infringement.
  • Reviewed source code.
21 April 2025 –
March 2026		 Maxell* v. Samsung 11,490,004
11,750,915		 U.S. International Trade Commission Mayer Brown Mobile touch screen user interfaces, smartphone camera interfaces, image processing.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on claim construction, infringement, domestic industries, validity.
  • Reviewed source code.
  • Filed multiple expert reports.
  • Testified in one deposition.
  • Testified on the stand at trial.
20 March 2024 –
May 2025		 Maxell* v. Samsung 8,982,086
11,223,757		 U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division; and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Mayer Brown Mobile touch screen user interfaces, capacitive sensors, fingerprint biometrics, user authentication interfaces, modes, smartphone camera interfaces, speech recognition.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on claim construction, infringement, validity.
  • Reviewed source code.
  • Filed multiple expert reports.
  • Filed two inter partes review declarations on behalf of patent owner.
  • Testified in three depositions.
  • Testified on the stand at trial.
19 August 2022 –
May 2023		 Maxell* v. Lenovo 8,982,086 U.S. International Trade Commission Mayer Brown Mobile touch screen user interfaces, capacitive sensors, fingerprint biometrics, user authentication interfaces, modes.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on claim construction, infringement, domestic industries, validity.
  • Reviewed source code.
  • Filed multiple expert reports.
  • Testified in one deposition.
18 July 2022 –
June 2023		 Smith Interface Technologies* v. Samsung 2016/0188181
10,642,413
10,649,580
10,656,754
10,656,758
10,671,212
10,782,819
10,788,931		 U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division Norton Rose Fulbright Mobile touch screen user interfaces, icons, touch input, gestures.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on infringement.
17 Sept. 2021 –
February 2022		 Impact Engine v. Google* 7,870,497
8,356,253
8,930,832
9,361,632
10,068,253
10,572,898		 U.S. District Court, Southern District of California Quinn Emanuel Web-based advertising, advertisement authoring tools, Adobe Flash, HTML5, CSS, and XML ad formats.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on infringement.
  • Reviewed source code.
  • Filed expert report.
  • Testified in one deposition.
16 Sept. 2021 –
Nov. 2021		 KinectUs v. Bumble* 9,294,428
9,584,464
9,763,070
10,117,074
10,117,075
10,516,979
10,575,145		 U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Waco Division Cooley User profile matching, mobile device proximity matching.
  • Reviewed patents and infringement contentions.
  • Offered opinions on claim construction and infringement.
15 May 2021 –
Sept. 2022		 Google* v. Neonode 8,095,879 Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Finnegan Henderson Mobile user interfaces, gestures, pen and touch input, buttons, icons, and labels, desktop metaphor, and X Windows.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on validity.
  • Filed three inter partes review declarations on behalf of petitioner.
  • Testified in two depositions.
14 Oct. 2020 –
July 2021		 Maxell* v. Apple 8,982,086 U.S. International Trade Commission; and the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Mayer Brown Mobile touch screen user interfaces, capacitive sensors, fingerprint biometrics, user authentication interfaces, pattern matching.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on claim construction, infringement, domestic industries, validity.
  • Reviewed source code.
  • Filed multiple expert reports.
  • Testified in one deposition.
  • Filed ex parte reexamination declaration.
  • Was interviewed by Patent Examiner.
13 June 2020 –
April 2021		 Huawei v. Verizon* 7,715,832
8,761,839		 U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Waco Division Quinn Emanuel Parental mobile device controls, graphical visualizations of phone contacts.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on claim construction, infringement, validity.
12 June 2019 –
July 2019		 Arendi SARL v. HTC* 7,917,843
8,306,993		 U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle Division Sidley Austin Interfaces for managing, linking to, and importing contact information.
  • Reviewed experts and determined POSITA qualifications.
11 Nov. 2018 –
June 2019		 Apple v. Qualcomm* 8,683,362 Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Baker Botts Mobile app window management, app switching, swipe gestures, touch screens.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on validity.
  • Filed two inter partes review declarations on behalf of patent owner.
10 Oct. 2018 –
August 2019		 Apple v. Qualcomm* 8,665,239 Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Baker Botts Gestures, touch screens, tabletops, tablets, gesture recognition, neural networks.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on validity.
  • Filed three inter partes review declarations on behalf of patent owner.
  • Testified in one deposition.
9 April 2018 Qualcomm* v. Apple 8,497,928 U.S. District Court, Southern District of California Quinn Emanuel Smartphone camera user interfaces.
  • Reviewed patents and infringement contentions.
8 Dec. 2016 –
April 2018		 HTC* v. Philips RE44,006 Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Perkins Coie Television user interfaces, graphical menus, 3-D menus, menu design.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on validity.
  • Filed two inter partes review declarations on behalf of petitioner.
  • Testified in two depositions.
7 Nov. 2016 –
January 2017		 Google* v. BlackBerry 8,411,845 Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Mayer Brown Smartphone call user interfaces, phone call logs, context menus.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on validity.
  • Filed inter partes review declaration on behalf of petitioner.
6 April 2015 –
Dec. 2016		 Advanced Touchscreen & Gesture Technologies* v. Samsung 8,717,303
8,878,810		 U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Waco Division; and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Robins Kaplan Touch screens, finger and hand gestures, gesture recognition.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on infringement and validity.
  • Filed expert report.
  • Filed inter partes review declaration on behalf of patent owner.
5 January 2014 –
February 2014		 BlackBerry v. Typo Products* 7,629,964
D685,775		 U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division The Taillieu Law Firm Physical mobile phone keyboards.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on infringement and validity.
  • Filed expert report.
4 Dec. 2011 –
July 2012		 HTC* v. Apple 6,473,006
7,020,849		 U.S. International Trade Commission Finnegan Henderson Mobile touch screen user interfaces, text entry, feedback, utilization of screen real estate.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on claim construction, infringement, domestic industries, validity.
  • Reviewed source code.
  • Filed multiple expert reports.
3 Sept. 2011 –
January 2012		 Apple v. HTC* 5,946,647 U.S. International Trade Commission Keker Van Nest Mobile touch screen user interfaces, document text processing.
  • Reviewed patents and ALJ infringement determinations.
  • Reviewed technology redesigns with respect to infringement.
  • Reviewed source code.
  • Presented technical aspects of redesigns to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
2 June 2010 –
June 2011		 HTC* v. Apple 5,541,988 U.S. International Trade Commission Finnegan Henderson and Keker Van Nest Mobile touch screen user interfaces, touch input, contact management software.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on claim construction, infringement, domestic industries.
  • Presented Markman tutorial at ITC hearing.
  • Reviewed source code.
  • Filed multiple expert reports.
  • Testified in one deposition.
  • Testified on the stand at trial.
1 Oct. 2007 –
Nov. 2007		 F&G Research v. Microsoft* 5,313,229 U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle Division K&L Gates Computer mice, mouse software, mouse scroll wheel.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on infringement.