Joseph S Grinstein

Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation, Patent, Copyright, Trade Secrets, Antitrust, Employment

Career

Grinstein is a trial lawyer who has handled cases in every corner of the country – from San Francisco to San Juan. He combines a passion for getting on my feet before judges and juries with the work ethic necessary to master the facts and the law before “showtime.”

Much of Grinstein's practice focuses on high-tech litigation. He have extensive experience handling patent, trade secret, and tech-related antitrust cases, and has represented clients in some of the nation’s highest profile intellectual-property disputes – from battles over self-driving cars to media processors to broadband satellites.

Grinstein's strong academic background has allowed him to handle a diverse caseload. He graduated from Rice University with three majors, conferred summa cum laude. He received his law degree from Yale Law School, where he was Managing Editor of the Yale Law Journal and won the school’s mock trial competition. After law school, Grinstein clerked on the Fifth Circuit for the Hon. Patrick E. Higginbotham.

In 2024, the National Law Journal named Grinstein one of nine national finalists for “Plaintiff Attorney of the Year,” and the Texas Lawyer named me one of three statewide finalists for “Texas Attorney of the Year.” In 2023 National Law Journal named Grinstein among their Intellectual Property Trailblazers. National Law Journal also profiled him as the representative of the firm when they honored Susman Godfrey with the Technology Litigation `Elite Trial Lawyers award` in 2023.

Grinstein was named among the country’s “Top 500 Leading Lawyers” by Lawdragon in 2024, named among their “Top 500 Leading Litigators” in 2022 and 2023, and has been included on their Top 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers list since 2019. IAM 1000 deemed Grinstein one of the “World’s Leading Patent Professionals” in 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2024. Benchmark Litigation Report recognized him in 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017 as a “Future Star” in Texas and in 2025 as a “Litigation Star.”

Work Highlights

Atlas Global Technologies LLC v. TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. et al (E.D. Tex.) Won a $37.5 million verdict for Atlas Global Technologies in its patent infringement case against Chinese telecom equipment manufacturer TP-Link. A Texas jury issued the verdict against TP-Link for infringing five patents for wireless routers that meet an industry standard known as “WiFi 6,” which was developed to provide fast, efficient internet connections for high-density locations such as offices, shopping malls and apartment buildings. Following a five-day trial and just a few hours of deliberations, the jury determined TP-Link owes Atlas $37,481,264 in damages.

Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC and Nokia of America Corporation (E.D. Tex.) Serving as lead counsel, won a $166.3 million jury verdict on behalf of client Finesse Wireless LLC on January 13, 2023, against AT&T Mobility LLC and Nokia Corporation of America over patent infringement claims relating to wireless networks. The jury delivered the verdict after three hours of deliberation following a week-long trial in the Eastern District of Texas. This win was reported by media outlets including Reuters, Nasdaq, Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg, Telecom Paper, Law360, and Texas Lawbook.

In Re Alfred Dewayne Brown (Texas Supreme Court) Secured a major pro bono victory for client Alfred Dewayne Brown. In 2005, Alfred Dewayne Brown was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Brown’s alibi turned on a telephone call he had made from another place at the time of the murders, which proved he could not have been involved. The recipient of the telephone call confirmed Brown’s alibi. Prosecutors subpoenaed the telephone records, which confirmed Brown’s alibi, then hid the records rather than turning them over to Brown’s lawyers as required by Brady v. Maryland. In addition, the district attorney had Brown’s alibi witness jailed until she agreed to abandon the alibi and “cooperate” with Brown’s prosecutors. Brown spent more than twelve years in prison, nine of them on Death Row, before his habeas petition was granted, his conviction reversed, and all charges against him were dismissed. For more than five years, Grinstein represented Brown in his efforts to win compensation from the state of Texas for his wrongful incarceration, which required a finding of “actual innocence.” In 2019, a special prosecutor concluded that Brown was actually innocent. The Harris County District Attorney agreed, and a state district judge deemed Brown to be actually innocent in an amended dismissal of his case. That should have ended the issue, but the State Comptroller and the Texas Attorney General continued to oppose compensation for Brown. Grinstein litigated the issue to the Texas Supreme Court, which in December 2020 unanimously ruled that Brown was entitled to compensation. Brown received close to $2 million in compensation from Texas. The landmark decision will make it easier for future exonerees to recover compensation for their wrongful imprisonment.

Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Represented Uber in one of the most prominent intellectual-property trials in years. The case involved allegations that Uber had misappropriated Waymo trade secrets and infringed Waymo patents relating to self-driving car technology. The lawsuit attracted attention around the world, and the trial was covered by an army of journalists and tech bloggers. The case settled during the first week of trial, in the middle of Grinstein’s cross-examination of Waymo’s lead technical witness.

Personalized Media Communications v. TiVo (E.D. Tex.) Represented Personalized Media Communications (PMC) in an arbitration to resolve its long-running licensing dispute with TiVo, formerly known as Gemstar-TV Guide International and Rovi Guides. TiVo had contended that, under its licensing agreement with PMC, it had the exclusive right to enforce infringement actions for functionality not performed by the program guide, but rather performed by digital set-top-boxes, such as the delivery of digital programming content. The arbitrator (retired U.S. District Court Judge David Folsom) rejected TiVo’s interpretation and found in favor of PMC on all issues. Thereafter, Judge Roy Payne entered Final Judgment in favor of PMC.

Walmart Puerto Rico Inc. v. Zaragoza-Gomez (First Circ.) Tried a case in federal district court in San Juan, Puerto Rico on behalf of the nation’s largest retailer, regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of Puerto Rico’s Alternative Minimum Tax. Grinstein was involved in all aspects of the case, including examining both sides’ constitutional and tax experts at trial. When the district court issued its opinion, it declared the challenged AMT provisions to violate the dormant commerce and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, in addition to the Federal Relations Act. The district court then enjoined further enforcement of these AMT provisions. There is a significant jurisdictional hurdle to challenging state (or commonwealth) taxes in federal court, so this ruling was a rare instance in which such a tax has been held unconstitutional by a federal district judge. Puerto Rico then appealed the district court’s ruling. Grinstein argued the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The First Circuit upheld the injunction and affirmed the district court in full. \

DataQuill Ltd. v. ZTE USA Inc (E.D. Tex.) Won a $31.5 million jury verdict on behalf of his client, DataQuill Ltd., in a patent case over allegations that ZTE (USA) Inc. infringed two DataQuill patents relating to smartphone technologies. Among other things, Grinstein argued for DataQuill at the Markmanhearing, and at trial he handled both sides’ damages witnesses and presented DataQuill’s inventor. After receiving the case, the jury took less than 45 minutes to render its verdict in favor of DataQuill.

PACT Technologies XPP, AG v. Xilinx, Inc. et al (E.D. Tex.) Obtained a $15.4 million verdict on behalf of PACT XPP Technologies, AG, in federal court in Marshall, Texas over allegations that Xilinx, Inc. and Avnet, Inc. had infringed two of PACT’s patents via their sale of certain Xilinx-branded Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) devices. The jury found that both PACT patents were infringed and valid, and it further determined Xilinx’s infringement to be willful. After enhancing the jury’s verdict and awarding attorney’s fees on account of the willfulness finding as well as adding costs and interest, the judgment in PACT’s favor totaled approximately $44 million. The case settled for a confidential amount while on appeal. In recognition of Grinstein’s accomplishments on the case, Texas Lawyer named him “Litigator of the Week” and printed a story in which he was quoted and pictured.

AvMed Inc. et al. v. BrownGreer, US Bancorp, and John Does (E.D. Louisiana) Represented a group of more than forty health plans (who between them comprise more than 70% of the U.S. market for private health insurance) asserting healthcare reimbursement liens against claimants to the $4.85 billion Vioxx compensation fund. Grinstein handled all arguments for the health plans before the District Court and later the Fifth Circuit. Grinstein’s clients reached a groundbreaking settlement with the Vioxx Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, guaranteeing them certain payouts on their liens covering participating plaintiffs. American Lawyer featured this settlement and mentioned Grinstein in the “Big Suits” column of its April 2009 issue.