Corey Johanningmeier
Tel. (415) 676-2220


Indiana University Maurer School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude, 2007

University of Southern California, B.S.E.E., 1997

Clerkship and Externship

Hon. David F. Hamilton
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2011-2012 

Extern to the Hon. David F. Hamilton, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 2007

Prior Experience

Jones Day, Los Angeles

Bar Admissions


U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh, Ninth and Federal Circuits

Corey Johanningmeier

Corey brings years of experience preparing and steering high technology intellectual property cases to resolution through summary judgment, favorable settlement, or trial. His practice often focuses on litigation and trial of patent cases, but has also included licensing contract disputes and antitrust. He has represented leading companies in a variety of industries including satellite television, consumer electronics, internet, and healthcare, and has defended and sometimes brought large scale patent suits.

Before embarking on his legal career, Corey worked as a chip designer and technical marketing engineer for several consumer electronics and optical networking companies in California and Massachusetts. He frequently finds opportunity to bring both his technical and business experience to bear on the substantive complexities and case management challenges of litigation.

Corey also maintains a pro bono practice in California state and federal courts, representing immigrants and indigent victims of fraud and circumstance. He has also tried three misdemeanor cases to jury verdict as a volunteer Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles.

Cases of Note

Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.: A Virginia federal judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all but one of Suffolk’s patent infringement claims, and issued a Daubert ruling striking the plaintiff’s expert damages opinion in its entirety. Soon after, Suffolk stipulated to invalidity on the last remaining claim. Suffolk had claimed that Google’s Adsense advertising placement technology, which selectively places paid advertisements for a company’s product or service on the Web page of another, used a similar protocol to the one under patent with Suffolk.

CA, Inc. d/b/a CA Technologies v. New Relic, Inc.: We are defending software analytics company, New Relic, Inc., from patent infringement allegations in the Eastern District of New York.

EMC Corporation v. Pure Storage Inc.: We defended data storage innovator Pure Storage Inc. in multi-patent litigation filed by its Fortune 500 rival EMC Corporation in the District of Delaware. EMC’s asserted patents related to various data storage technologies, including technology for deduplicating data. We prevailed on two of the five patents in suit prior to trial, and obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement as two others following a seven-day jury trial. We then won partial judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on invalidity as to EMC’s one remaining asserted patent. Shortly following the court’s order granting a new trial, Pure Storage and EMC reached a global settlement.

Round Rock Research LLC v. SanDisk Corporation: We defended SanDisk from numerous patent assertions by Round Rock, including a total of 15 patents asserted in two separate litigations in the District of Delaware, and 12 patents asserted in another case in the Northern District of California. We prevailed in all adjudicated phases of the Delaware and California actions before the parties reached a broad settlement. In the California action, we secured final judgment in favor of SanDisk after obtaining a summary-judgment victory based on patent exhaustion. In the first Delaware phase, which culminated with a jury trial on two asserted patents, we obtained a defense verdict invalidating most asserted claims of both patents, and finding no infringement as to the other claims. In the next Delaware phase, a second jury trial was vacated after we obtained summary judgment invalidating claims from a third patent asserted by Round Rock. The other patents in the Delaware actions remained pending adjudication when the parties settled.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v. BT Americas et al.: We represented Comcast in asserting multiple patents against BT in the Northern District of Texas. The patents at issue covered multiple networking technologies, including congestion management, routing, policy management, security, and audio/video conferencing. Through a successful summary judgment and stipulated dismissals, we reached a very favorable resolution.

Publications and Speaking Engagements

  • The 7 Virtues of the Design-Around,” Legaltech News, 2016
  • Presented as “IP Practitioner-in-Residence,” Center for Intellectual Property Research, IU Maurer School of Law, October 2016
  • Note published as “Law & Politics, The Case Against Judicial Review of Direct Democracy,” 82 Indiana Law Journal 1125

Honors and Awards

  • Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2016
  • Representation of DIRECTV, Inc. recognized in The Daily Journal’s “Top Verdicts of 2010”
  • Articles Editor, Indiana Law Journal, 2006-2007
  • Order of the Coif, 2007
Developed by Tenrec