John C. Jarosz
 
                    Education
M.A., economics, and Ph.D. candidate, economics, Washington University in St. Louis; J.D., University of Wisconsin; B.A., economics and organizational communication, Creighton University
Summary of Experience
Mr. Jarosz is an economist and director of Analysis Group’s Washington, DC office. He specializes in matters involving intellectual property (IP), commercial damages, licensing, and antitrust. His IP work focuses on evaluating lost profits, reasonable royalties, price erosion, commercial success, licensing terms, best efforts, irreparable harm, and FRAND commitments. Mr. Jarosz has significant expertise testifying in patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret tort and contract matters. He is also experienced in both US and international arbitration, often serving as an expert witness in matters involving IP rights.
A frequent author and lecturer on the economics of IP protection, Mr. Jarosz has participated in and given presentations at various meetings of the Sedona Conference, Intellectual Property Owners Association, Licensing Executives Society, and the Association of University Technology Managers. He has published a variety of papers in professional and practitioner journals, and he has taught classes at Georgetown University Law Center, George Washington University Law School, the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Department of Economics, Columbia Business School, and the US Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Jarosz has been recognized for many years as among the top economic experts for IP matters by Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) in the IAM Patent 1000, which identifies leading patent professionals around the globe.
Provided Expert Testimony
- Bavarian Nordic v. Acambis, PLC (Inv. No. 337-TA-550)
- Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
- Bial - Portela & CA S.A., et al. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al.
- Cogent Systems, Inc. v. Northrop Grumman Corporation
- Dolby International AB, GE Video Compression, LLC, and Koninklijke Philips NV v. MAS Elektronik Aktiengesellschaft
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries Inc.
- Fishman Transducers, Inc. v. Stephen Paul d/b/a Esteban, et al.
- Galderma Laboratories et al. v. Tolmar, Inc.
- In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1012)
- InnoPharma Licensing Inc. et al. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al.
- Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.
- Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Abilify Litigations
- Sight Sciences, Inc. v. Ivantis, Inc., et al.
- St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. v. Toshiba Corp. et al.
- Syngenta Crop Protection LLC v Willowood LLC et al
- The Vineyard House, LLC v. Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc., and Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. v. The Vineyard House, LLC
- Universal Electronics Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.
- Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Charter Communications Inc. and Charter Communications Operating, LLC
Additional Cases
- 
                                                        
- 
                                                        Lost Profits Damages: Principles, Methods, and Applications (second edition)Valuation Products and Services, LLC, 2022 
 2022Kinrich J, Harry E 
- 
                                                        Prejudgment Interest: W.D. Texas Got It Right In The VLSI v. Intel Patent Suitles Nouvelles, 2022 
 2022
- 
                                                        Preliminary Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases: Repairing Irreparable HarmTexas Intellectual Property Law Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 63–130, 2022 
 2022
- 
                                                        Patent damages in US courts: overview of current state of playIAM Yearbook 2019, October 2018 
 2018
- 
                                                        
- 
                                                        REBUTTAL It's Not An Inappropriate Reasonable Royalty RuleLaw360, August 21, 2015 
 2015Chapman M, Jarosz J 
- 
                                                        Assessing Commercial Success at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal BoardInternational In-house Counsel Journal, Vol. 8, No. 32, 
 2015
- 
                                                        
- 
                                                        Problems With Hypothesizing Reasonable Royalty NegotiationLaw360, January 7, 2014 
 2014Jarosz J, Chapman M 
- 
                                                        The Hypothetical Negotiation and Reasonable Royalty Damages: The Tail Wagging the DogStanford Technology Law Review, August 29, 2013 
 2013Jarosz J, Chapman M 
- 
                                                        
- 
                                                        
- 
                                                        The Economic Implications (and Uncertainties) of Obtaining Permanent Injunctive Relief After eBay v. MercExchangeThe Federal Circuit Bar Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 437–71, 2008 
 2008Jarosz J, Chapman M, Ellis D, Oliver L 
- 
                                                        Application of Game Theory to Intellectual Property Royalty NegotiationsLicensing Best Practices: Strategic, Territorial, and Technology Issues 
 2006Chapman M, Jarosz J 
- 
                                                        Book Review: The LESI Guide to Licensing Best Practices: Strategic Issues and Contemporary RealitiesIntellectual Property Law Newsletter 
 2003
- 
                                                        Use of the 25 Per Cent Rule in Valuing IPLes Nouvelles, Journal of The Licensing Executives Society 
 2002
- 
                                                        Intellectual Property Valuation and Hughes Aircraft v. The United States: A Giant Leap for Mankind or Lost in Space?Intellectual Property Infringement Damages: A Litigation Support Handbook, 1997 Cumulative Supplement 
 1997Jarosz J, Reed BL 
- 
                                                        
- 
                                                        The Panduit Lost Profits Test After BIC Leisure v. WindsurfingThe Federal Circuit Bar Journal 
 1993Jarosz J, Page EM 
- 
                                                        
- 
                                                        Pre-tax versus After-tax Patent Damages: Do The Courts Have It Right?Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 
 1992
- 
                                                        The CAFC and Its Patent Damages AwardsThe University of Baltimore Intellectual Property Law Journal 
 1992
- 
                                                        
- 
                                                        April 28, 2021
- 
                                                        August 12, 2021
- 
                                                        January 18, 2023
- 
                                                    November 12, 2024
- 
                                                    June 11, 2024
- 
                                                    May 16, 2024
- 
                                                    January 19, 2024
- 
                                                    July 18, 2023
- 
                                                    June 6, 2023
- 
                                                    September 19, 2022
- 
                                                    February 7, 2022
- 
                                                    July 1, 2021
- 
                                                    April 29, 2021
- 
                                                    February 12, 2021
 
         
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                