Josh focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, with extensive experience in patent and trade secret litigation. He has represented clients ranging from Fortune 100 companies to startups in jurisdictions across the country. Josh advises clients at all stages of intellectual property disputes, from pre-suit licensing and dispute resolution negotiations through trial and appeal. He also litigates copyright, trademark and unfair competition cases, as well as commercial disputes involving technology.

As a registered professional engineer with experience working in-house, at the judiciary and in private practice, he offers a combination of technical knowledge, business insight and legal guidance. Through his years spent working as an engineer, and now as an intellectual property attorney, Josh has gained experience in a variety of technologies, including computer hardware and software, video streaming and analytics, medical devices, consumer electronics and products, semiconductors, gaming devices and water and wastewater treatment systems.

Beyond litigation, Josh helps clients develop strategies to establish, maintain and protect their intellectual property assets. He has prosecuted patent applications and engaged in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). His trademark experience includes prosecuting applications and handling post-grant review proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

Josh also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Patricia K. Norris at the Arizona Court of Appeals, as a full-time extern to the Honorable Kathleen M. O’Malley at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as an extern to the Honorable Jon Thompson at the Arizona Court of Appeals and as an extern to Arizona Supreme Court’s presiding disciplinary judge, the Honorable William O’Neil.

Outside of his legal practice, Josh is an active member of the Golden Gate Triathlon Club and South End Rowing Club.

Education

  • Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University (J.D., summa cum laude, 2015)
    • Order of the Coif
    • CALI Excellence awards in Patent Law; Trademark & Unfair Competition Law; Patent Law Clinic; Torts; Constitutional Law II; Nanotechnology; Executive Branch Regulatory Policy; and Legislative Advocacy & the Law
    • Certificate in Law, Science & Technology with Specialization in Intellectual Property
    • Highest Pro Bono Distinction
  • California Polytechnic State University (B.S., 2008)
    • San Luis Obispo, Civil Engineering

Bar Admission

  • California
  • Colorado
  • Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado

Professional Affiliations

  • State Bar of California
    • Intellectual Property Section
  • American Bar Association
  • Intellectual Property Section
  • SF Bay Area IP Inn of Court

Recognition

  • Named one of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America in:
    • Intellectual Property Law, 2026
    • Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2026
    • Litigation - Patent, 2026
  • Participant, Polsinelli Trial Academy facilitated by NITA, 2024
Publications
Disclosure to Generative-AI Tools Can Create Patent Prosecution Risk
Key Takeaways Using generative-AI tools for patent drafting creates more than efficiency gains. AI-assisted patent drafting can create patentability risks associated with novelty, inventorship, § 112, and later, enforceability. Public accessibility, not the use of AI itself, drives the statutory-bar analysis. Disclosing an invention to an AI system may qualify as a “printed publication” or as making it “otherwise available to the public” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), thereby creating a statutory bar risk that could preclude patent protection. AI can assist inventors and patent counsel, but it cannot be the inventor. Inventorship still requires human conception. Companies using AI in invention disclosures or patent drafting should adopt guardrails. Use closed AI environments for all invention disclosure and patent drafting, avoid AI tools accessible
Read More
Who Owns AI-Generated Content? Human Authorship Still Controls, and Documenting the Creation Process Is Critical
Key Takeaways Copyright law’s existing framework still governs AI-generated outputs: originality, human authorship and fixation remain the core principles. In 2025, the D.C. Circuit confirmed that the Copyright Act requires human authorship and does not permit copyright registration for works generated autonomously by AI. The Copyright Office has taken the same position: AI-assisted works may be protectable, but purely AI-generated material, or material reflecting insufficient human control over expressive elements, is not. For businesses, the practical question is not whether AI may be used to create content — it may. The question is whether the business can identify and document enough human-authored expression to support ownership, registration and enforcement. Businesses across industries now use generative AI to draft advertising and website text, create images and
Read More