Jon Dean

JON DEAN focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation matters, including patent and trade secrets cases, antitrust actions, securities matters, unfair competition cases, trademark disputes, employment actions, OSHA cases, and healthcare matters. Jon is a former prosecutor and an experienced trial lawyer, having served as trial counsel on both civil and criminal cases. He also represents companies and individuals in connection with civil and criminal government investigations, including investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and local law enforcement agencies.

Jon previously served as a law clerk for The Honorable A. Andrew Hauk, Senior Judge and Chief Judge Emeritus, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. He also previously worked for The Honorable Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Jon has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® for Healthcare Law in Los Angeles each year since 2021 (2021–2025) and was included in the Daily Journal’s “Best Lawyers” list (2024). He was also selected by Benchmark Litigation (2009–2025) and Chambers USA for Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations (2021).

Jon currently serves as an adjunct professor of law at the USC Gould School of Law. He teaches a course on appellate and courtroom advocacy.

Jon has served as trial counsel and/or appellate counsel for:

• A leading maker of office headsets and videoconferencing products, in connection with a trade secret misappropriation action. In a sweeping published opinion entered shortly before trial, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (2019–2023); Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2023)).
• A major online short-term rental (STR) platform, on a landmark California Coastal Act matter in which the plaintiff seeks a statewide injunction concerning all STRs located within California’s 1,100-mile-long coastal zone. After oral argument on defendant’s demurrer, the matter was dismissed by the trial court and was subsequently unanimously affirmed by a published opinion of the court of appeal. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (2021); California Courts of Appeal (2022–2023); California Supreme Court (2023–2024)).
• A well-known luxury candy company, in connection with an unfair competition and trademark misappropriation action. Immediately before trial, the court summarily adjudicated all claims in favor of the defendant, primarily on the grounds of genericness and damages. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (2018–2023); Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2023–present)).
• A tech executive in connection with a trade secret misappropriation action that was successfully compelled to arbitration. On the day before trial, the plaintiff capitulated and the matter was successfully resolved for the firm’s client (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, JAMS Arbitration (2019–2022)).
• A leading maker of office headsets, in a US$600 million+ antitrust action between direct competitors The jury deliberated for barely an hour before returning a complete defense verdict in favor of his client (U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (2017); Third Circuit Court of Appeals (2018–2019); U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (2019–2020)).
• A smartphone manufacturer, in a patent infringement action involving wireless mobile phone technology and network infrastructure patents in which the court found four out of the five patents-in-suit invalid or not infringed on summary judgment. The matter proceeded to trial on the remaining patent and, after less than a day of deliberations, the jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of the firm’s client (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (2015–2016)).
• A manufacturer of application delivery controllers, in a highly contentious patent infringement action between direct competitors. After a trial lasting nearly a month, the jury found in favor of the firm’s client, rejected defendant’s claims of invalidity, and found the defendant liable for willful infringement; an injunction was entered against the defendant (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (2015–2016)).
• A fabless chip designer in a trade secret misappropriation, patent inventorship, trademark, and breach of contract action involving dual in-line memory modules. After less than two days of deliberations, the jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of the firm’s client on all eight trade secret claims, the two breach of contract claims, and the patent inventorship claim, and awarded plaintiff a mere US$2 in nominal damages on the two trademark claims (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (2015)).
• A smartphone manufacturer in a patent infringement action involving wireless mobile phone technology. After deliberating for less than four hours, the jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of the firm’s client on both patent infringement and invalidity (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (2014)).
• A smartphone manufacturer in a patent infringement action filed by a Mauritian non-practicing entity that claimed to have lawful ownership of the patents-in-suit through a trust set up by a major Taiwanese technology company. The firm’s client contended that all of the patents-in-suit were not infringed and that the plaintiff had no standing to proceed with the lawsuit under U.S. and Taiwanese trust laws. During the third week of trial, just before closing arguments, the plaintiff dismissed the case in its entirety and the matter was successfully resolved for the firm’s client (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (2012–2013)).
• A major automotive parts distributor in connection with a felony criminal complaint asserting alleged willful violations of OSHA regulations. After a preliminary hearing spanning multiple weeks, which included testimony from nearly a dozen fact and expert witnesses, all criminal charges against the firm’s client were dismissed in their entirety in what was the first-known court-ordered dismissal of criminal OSHA charges at the preliminary hearing stage by a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (2012)).
• A major hospital system in a qui tam action involving 19 separate allegations of Medicare fraud and abuse, as well as claims of unlawful retaliation. Shortly before trial, the matter was resolved with the dismissal of all claims and a confidential settlement solely related to the non-fraud-based retaliation claims (U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (2010–2011)).
• A major marketing and distribution company in a successfully decertified class action case involving allegations of consumer fraud and violations of the California Labor Code. In the third week of trial, during Jon’s cross-examination of one of the lead plaintiffs, the 15 named plaintiffs dismissed their case in its entirety and received no award of damages (California Superior Court, Riverside County (2009)).
• The co-founder of a Nasdaq-traded broadband communications company on matters filed in federal and state courts involving alleged misdated stock options. After years of litigation in connection with the largest restatement issued to date relating to misdated options, Jon helped secure the historic dismissal of federal criminal charges (immediately after his client testified in a related criminal trial), the subsequent dismissal of a related SEC action, and the successful resolution of related class action and shareholder derivative matters (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (2006–2011)).
• A Nasdaq company on a high-profile matter involving alleged breaches of founding partnership agreements and related employment contracts. After a trial lasting more than two months, the jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of his client (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (2000)).

The above matters were handled prior to joining Sidley.

• Past Member, Board of Directors, Western Justice Center
• Past Member, Board of Directors, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles