Due to the increasing cost of Ph.D. students, decreasing funding rates, and current size of the ACE Lab, I will not be taking new Ph.D. students until, at the earliest, academic year 2026-2027.
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), augmented reality (AR), accessible computing, assistive technologies.

Experience:   I have completed work as an expert witness on 19 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 nine (9) times, and testified on the stand at one (1) ITC hearing.

I am a co-author on 19 issued patents and over 200 academic papers. See my publications. You can also read my bio or see my curriculum vitae (PDF).

No.  

Dates

Matter

For

Venue

Firm

Topics

Activities
19 Aug. 2022 –
May 2023		 Maxell v. Lenovo
⤷ U.S. #8,982,086
 Maxell 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, and validity.
  • Reviewed computer source code.
  • Filed multiple expert reports.
  • Gave deposition testimony.
  • Prepared for ITC hearing.
18 July 2022 –
June 2023		 Smith Interface Technologies v. Samsung
⤷ U.S. #10,642,413
⤷ U.S. #10,649,580
⤷ U.S. #10,656,754
⤷ U.S. #10,656,758
⤷ U.S. #10,671,212
⤷ U.S. #10,782,819
⤷ U.S. #10,788,931
 Smith Interface Technologies 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 –
Feb. 2022		 Impact Engine v. Google
⤷ U.S. #7,870,497
⤷ U.S. #8,356,253
⤷ U.S. #8,930,832
⤷ U.S. #9,361,632
⤷ U.S. #10,068,253
⤷ U.S. #10,572,898
 Google 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 computer source code.
  • Filed expert report.
  • Gave deposition testimony.
16 Sept. 2021 –
Nov. 2021		 KinectUs v. Bumble
⤷ U.S. #9,294,428
⤷ U.S. #9,584,464
⤷ U.S. #9,763,070
⤷ U.S. #10,117,074
⤷ U.S. #10,117,075
⤷ U.S. #10,516,979
⤷ U.S. #10,575,145
 Bumble 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
⤷ U.S. #8,095,879
 Google 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 Google.
  • Gave testimony in two depositions.
14 Oct. 2020 –
July 2021		 Maxell v. Apple
⤷ U.S. #8,982,086
 Maxell 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, and validity.
  • Reviewed computer source code.
  • Filed multiple expert reports.
  • Gave deposition testimony.
  • Filed ex parte reexamination declaration.
  • Was interviewed by Patent Examiner.
13 June 2020 –
Apr. 2021		 Huawei v. Verizon
⤷ U.S. #7,715,832
⤷ U.S. #8,761,839
 Verizon 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, and validity.
12 June 2019 –
July 2019		 Arendi SARL v. HTC
⤷ U.S. #7,917,843
⤷ U.S. #8,306,993
 HTC U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle 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
⤷ U.S. #8,683,362
 Qualcomm 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 Qualcomm.
10 Oct. 2018 –
Aug. 2019		 Apple v. Qualcomm
⤷ U.S. #8,665,239
 Qualcomm 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 Qualcomm.
  • Gave deposition testimony.
9 Apr. 2018 Qualcomm v. Apple
⤷ U.S. #8,497,928
 Qualcomm U.S. District Court, Southern District of California Quinn Emanuel Smartphone camera user interfaces.
  • Reviewed patents and infringement contentions.
8 Dec. 2016 –
Apr. 2018		 HTC v. Philips
⤷ U.S. #RE44,006
 HTC 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 HTC.
  • Gave testimony in two depositions.
7 Nov. 2016 –
Jan. 2017		 Google v. BlackBerry
⤷ U.S. #8,411,845
 Google 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 Google.
6 Apr. 2015 –
Dec. 2016		 Advanced Touchscreen & Gesture Technologies v. Samsung
⤷ U.S. #8,717,303
⤷ U.S. #8,878,810
 Advanced Touchscreen & Gesture Technologies 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 Advanced Touchscreen and Gesture Technologies.
5 Jan. 2014 –
Feb. 2014		 BlackBerry v. Typo Products
⤷ U.S. #7,629,964
⤷ U.S. #D685,775
 Typo Products 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
⤷ U.S. #6,473,006
⤷ U.S. #7,020,849
 HTC 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, and validity.
  • Reviewed computer source code.
  • Filed multiple expert reports.
3 Sept. 2011 –
Jan. 2012		 Apple v. HTC
⤷ U.S. #5,946,647
 HTC 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 computer source code.
  • Presented technical aspects of redesigns to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
2 June 2010 –
June 2011		 HTC v. Apple
⤷ U.S. #5,541,988
 HTC 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, and domestic industries.
  • Presented Markman tutorial at ITC hearing.
  • Reviewed computer source code.
  • Filed multiple expert reports.
  • Gave deposition testimony.
  • Prepared for ITC hearing.
  • Testified on the stand at ITC hearing.
1 Oct. 2007 –
Nov. 2007		 F&G Research v. Microsoft
⤷ U.S. #5,313,229
 Microsoft U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle K&L Gates Computer mice, mouse software, mouse scroll wheel.
  • Reviewed patents and offered opinions on infringement.