Matthew J. Rizzolo

Jump to:

Matt is a seasoned and versatile litigator who works with companies across industries, developing and implementing creative strategies to enforce clients’ intellectual property rights, defend clients from infringement and unfair competition claims, and resolve complex business disputes. Matt leads the firm’s practice in Section 337 actions before the United States International Trade Commission and has significant experience litigating intellectual property-related cases in a variety of jurisdictions, including federal district courts throughout the United States, the Court of Federal Claims, the Federal Circuit, and before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, as well as in international arbitrations and proceedings before U.S. Customs and Border Protection. His practice encompasses all facets of litigation, from pre-suit investigation through trial, post-trial proceedings, and appeals.

Matt has counseled clients in patent cases involving a wide variety of technical fields, including smartphones, video gaming devices, computer software and hardware, telecommunications, and Internet-related services, as well as biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. He has additional experience in drafting and negotiating patent and technology licensing agreements, and is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. In addition to his patent experience, Matt is well-versed in litigating a broad range of additional intellectual property and unfair competition-related issues, including Lanham Act false advertising and trademark matters, copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, FRAND licensing, and constitutional issues. He also maintains an active pro bono practice and has represented pro bono clients in federal and state courts, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and before the Social Security Administration.

Matt frequently writes and speaks on a wide variety of intellectual property issues, and is a sought-after commentator who has been quoted in media such as The National Law Journal, Bloomberg, Reuters, CNBC, and Law360, among others. He is a co-host of Ropes & Gray’s IP(DC) podcast, which focuses on intellectual property developments emanating from Washington, DC. While at a previous law firm, Matt also co-founded and wrote for The Essential Patent Blog, a legal blog that focuses on issues relating to standard-essential patents. Prior to law school, Matt worked in various technical and engineering positions for Cooper Industries, an electrical products manufacturer, as part of Cooper’s Operations Leadership Program.

Experience

International Trade Commission Section 337 Experience

Certain Video Capable Electronic Devices (337-TA-1379 and 1337-TA-1380) – Defending leading electronics provider HP, Inc. in multiple Section 337 patent infringement cases brought by Nokia over a total of seven patents involving H.264/H.265 video coding standards.
Advised and represented a Major Consumer Products Manufacturer regarding Section 337 exclusion order enforcement issues with the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch of U.S. Customs.
Certain Video Processing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-1343) – Representing Roku, Inc. in responding to third-party subpoena issued by complainant DivX in investigation relating to video and graphics processing technology.
Certain Semiconductor Devices Having Layered Dummy Fill, Electronic Devices, and Components Thereof (No. 337-TA-1342) – Defended Marvell Semiconductor and MACOM Technology Solutions against semiconductor design-related patent infringement claims brought by Bell Semiconductor. The investigation was settled and terminated shortly after the commencement of discovery.
Certain Electronic Devices and Semiconductor Devices With Timing-Aware Dummy Fill and Components Thereof (337-TA-1319) – Defended Marvell Semiconductor against semiconductor design-related patent infringement claims brought by Bell Semiconductor, who withdrew its complaint shortly after Marvell and other respondents successfully persuaded the presiding ALJ to set an extended target date.
Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Digital Televisions Containing The Same (337-TA-1318) – Represented Roku, Inc. in responding to third-party subpoena issued by complainant AMD in investigation relating to graphics processing technology.
Certain Botulinum Toxin Products and Process for Manufacturing or Relating to Same (337-TA-1313) – Represented Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals in responding to third-party subpoena issued by complainant Medytox in investigation relating to botulinum toxin products.
Certain Networking Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof and Systems Containing the Same (337-TA-1298) – Defended cloud storage provider NetApp against patent infringement claims brought by Proven Networks. Successfully obtained summary determination of no violation based on Proven’s waiver of its domestic industry theory through prior patent license agreement with RPX Corporation.
Certain Automated Put Walls and Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems, Associated Vehicles, Associated Control Software, and Component Parts Thereof (337-TA-1293) – Represented respondents Invata, LLC and HC Robotics in pre-institution proceedings in a multi-patent Section 337 investigation involving automated warehouse and logistics technology. Obtained withdrawal of one of the asserted patents prior to the ITC’s institution of investigation.
Certain Smart Thermostat Systems, Smart HVAC Systems, Smart HVAC Control Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1258 – Successfully obtained early termination of investigation on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint against client Emerson Electric in a five-patent ITC investigation involving smart thermostats.
Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Products Containing the Same and Components Thereof (337-TA-1231) – Defended a leading multinational electronics company against claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation in a Section 337 action and multi-forum dispute brought by non-practicing entity Pictos Technologies, Inc., forcing a favorable settlement in the months before trial.
Certain Furniture Products Finished with Decorative Wood Grain Paper and Components Thereof (337-TA-1229) – Served as lead counsel defending Walker Edison Furniture Company, LLC against a claim of copyright infringement concerning the wood grain pattern applied to models of its ready-to-assemble furniture. Successfully resolved the dispute via consent order at minimal cost to client.
Certain Digital Video-Capable Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-1224) – Representing Roku Inc. in responding to multiple third-party subpoenas in a case relating to HDMI standards and anti-piracy technology.
Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing Same (337-TA-1222) – Representing Roku Inc. in responding to a third-party subpoena issued by complainant DivX in a case involving video processing and streaming technology.
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1200) – Successfully defended Roku, Inc. against claims of infringement in a six-patent case relating to remote control programming technology. Obtained withdrawal or finding of no violation as to five patents and implemented non-infringing design-around of remaining patent. Also successfully represented Roku in multiple Part 177 proceeding before the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch of U.S. Customs, obtaining findings of non-infringement for additional modifications to Roku’s products.
Certain Balanced Armature Devices, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1186) – Representing third party GN Hearing in ITC investigation concerning trade secret misappropriation issues and pre-institution proceedings relating thereto.
Successfully represented Rovi/TiVo in its multi-year, multi-jurisdictional intellectual property dispute with Comcast over digital video recording, broadband gateway, and universal program guide functionality, including in three ITC investigations (337-TA-1158, 337-TA-1103, 337-TA-1001). After Rovi obtained two separate exclusion orders, a favorable Federal Circuit precedential decision, and a denial of Comcast’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, Matt helped Rovi secure an Initial Determination of infringement of two additional patents by Comcast and a recommendation of a third exclusion order by the presiding ALJ. Shortly before the Commission issued its final decision, the parties settled, with Comcast agreeing to a 15-year license to Rovi’s patent portfolio.
Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products and Related Components Thereof (337-TA-1131) – Successfully secured a Final Determination finding no violation of Section 337 by Emerson Electric in a four-patent ITC investigation brought by non-practicing entity SIPCO against Emerson’s WirelessHART-compatible industrial wireless technology and infrastructure products.
Certain Clidinium Bromide and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1109) – Served as lead counsel representing A Major Pharmaceutical Company in a non-patent Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission involving claims of unfair competition and false advertising of FDA approval by manufacturers and sellers of unauthorized generic versions of a branded drug used to treat gastrointestinal disorders. The investigation was the first to proceed to an early evidentiary hearing under the issues of both domestic industry and injury.
Certain L-Tryptophan, L-Tryptophan Products, and Their Methods of Production (337-TA-1005 / Fed. Cir. / Supreme Court) – Served as lead counsel defending CJ CheilJedang adverse to its competitor Ajinomoto in a two-patent ITC dispute relating to genetically-modified bacteria for the production of L-tryptophan. Secured initial determination of no violation of Section 337 at trial, with the presiding Administrative Law Judge finding both patents to be invalid and not infringed and that Ajinomoto failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding of non-infringement in a precedential opinion, allowing CJ’s business to continue uninterrupted. Filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on a novel issue involving prosecution history estoppel arising from the case.
Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-916) – Represented Spansion in an ITC investigation brought against Macronix and several electronics manufacturers, relating to infringement of four patents directed to flash memory chips.
Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-909) – Defended Spansion in an ITC investigation adverse to Macronix, relating to three patents directed to features and fabrication of flash memory devices.
Certain Gaming and Entertainment Systems, Related Software, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-752) – Represented Motorola Mobility, Inc. in an ongoing ITC investigation against Microsoft relating to five patents asserted against features of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 video gaming system.
Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs (337-TA-706) – Represented Motorola, Inc. in an ITC investigation against RIM relating to five patents directed to features of wireless telecommunication devices and servers. RIM settled with Motorola shortly before a Markman hearing as part of a global settlement of all litigation between the parties.

Additional Complex Litigation Matters

Nokia Technologies Oy v. HP, Inc. (D. Del.) – Representing HP, Inc. in ten-patent infringement case relating to H.264 and H.265 video coding technology. Matter involves significant number of SEP- and FRAND-related counterclaims, including breach of contract, Sherman Act antitrust, and fraud claims.
HP Inc. v. Access Advance et al. (D. Mass.): Representing HP in a declaratory judgment action against standard-essential patent licensing administrator Access Advance and several licensors, alleging breach of contract and unfair competition based on licensing negotiations.
KetoNaturals v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition et al. (D. Kan.): Successfully obtained pre-answer dismissal on behalf of two Tufts University veterinary school professors named in a false advertising class action complaint concerning pet food products.
Bishop Display Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics et al. (E.D. Tex.): Representing LGE in multi-patent case concerning liquid crystal display (LCD) technology.
Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance v. Novavax, Inc. (ICC Arbitration): Represented biotech manufacturer Novavax in commercial arbitration concerning alleged breach of COVID-19 vaccine advance purchase agreement. Successfully settled matter for significantly less than the $700M originally sought by Gavi.
Staton Techiya v. HARMAN International Industries (D. Del.) – Defending audio electronics and IoT solutions company HARMAN in multiple district court cases involving eleven patents directed to a variety of wireless and audio technologies.
Verrica Pharmaceuticals v. Dormer Laboratories (E.D. Pa.) – Representing Verrica in a competitor litigation involving Lanham Act claims of false advertising and state law unfair competition claims.
Simplex Designs v. Tightline Development (N.D. Ga.) – Represented medical device manufacturer in declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and state law unfair competition claims against a competitor. Case successfully settled shortly after filing.
Tranquility IP v. NetApp (D. Co.) – Represented cloud storage provider NetApp in patent infringement case relating to wireless communication technology. Tranquility withdrew its complaint after it was presented with clear non-infringement positions.
Bell Semiconductor v. Marvell Semiconductor / MACOM Technology Solutions (D. Mass / C.D. Cal.) – Represented multiple semiconductor manufacturers in ten separate district court actions involving claims of patent infringement related to various aspects of semiconductor technology. The disputes settled after the intervention of a third party.
Focus Global Solutions v. NetApp (D. Del.) – Defended cloud storage provider NetApp in patent infringement case relating to structure of storage area networks. Complaint was withdrawn after NetApp filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the marking statute.
WFR IP v. GN Audio USA (D. Del.) – Represented wireless audio device manufacturer in patent infringement case relating to construction of wireless headphones. Case settled favorably after GN Audio filed motion to dismiss for lack of compliance with marking requirement.
Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics / Ecolink Intelligent Technology, Inc. (PTAB) – Representing Roku in multiple patent validity challenges to patents held by UEI and Ecolink.
Signify North America Corp. v. All Star Lighting Supplies (D.N.J.) – Defended small lighting device company against multi-patent infringement suit from Signify, formerly Philips Lighting.
GN Audio A/S v. Snik LLC (N.D. Cal.) – Filed declaratory judgment action on behalf of major wireless audio device manufacturer in response to repeated licensing demands from non-practicing entity. Case settled shortly after filing on favorable terms for our client.
Creekview IP v. Jabra Corporation / GN Audio (D. Del.) – Represented wireless audio device manufacturer in obtaining favorable settlement in patent case relating wireless communication technology.
Natera, Inc. v. A Leading Genomics Company (D. Del.) – Defended a leading genomics company from claims of infringement of four patents relating to cell-free DNA sequencing.
Teradyne, Inc. v. Astronics Corporation (C.D. Cal.) – Representing Teradyne, Inc., a leading supplier of automation equipment for test and industrial applications, in a case raising patent, copyright, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims against Astronics Corporation and a subsidiary.
Ragner Technology et al. v. National Express / Telebrands (D.N.J.) – Representing patent owner Ragner Technology and exclusive licensee Tristar Products in a set of competitor cases, asserting patents covering expandable garden hoses and methods of use, as well as raising claims of false advertising and unfair competition.
Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc. (PTAB) – Representing patent owner GREE, Inc. in multiple Post-Grant Review proceedings defending its video game-related patents against challenges under Section 101 and 112 brought by its competitor Supercell.
Veeco Instruments Inc. v. SGL Carbon, LLC et al.,(E.D.N.Y. / Fed. Cir.) – Represented Veeco in a two-patent infringement case related to removable wafer carriers used in the production of LEDs in Metal-Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition (MOCVD) systems. Successfully obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting SGL from supplying infringing wafer carriers to Veeco’s chief MOCVD competitor, after which the case settled while on appeal.
Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (PTAB) – Defended patent owner Veeco Instruments against a petition for inter partes review brought by its competitor AMEC. Petition was withdrawn pre-institution after settlement.
Sportbrain Holdings LLC v. GN Netcom, Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill.) – Represented GN Netcom in defending patent infringement claims relating to wireless headphones and applications relating thereto. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case prior to the Answer after GN Netcom alleged lack of a Rule 11 basis for Plaintiff’s infringement claims.
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC (U.S. Sup. Ct.): – Co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of the world’s leading consumer electronics company, supporting the respondent, in a case addressing the authority of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board to rule on the patentability of issued patents in inter partes review proceedings.
Represented StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. in multiple district court actions in the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia involving the assertion of its patents relating to out-of-band authentication techniques and systems against SecureAuth Corp. and Entrust, Inc. Also successfully represented StrikeForce in defeating two petitions for inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
XR Communications, LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Defending Extreme Networks against patent infringement claims relating to wireless communications systems and technology.
Plectrum LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Defended Extreme Networks against patent infringement claims relating to various aspects of computer networking technology.
VStream Technologies v. Contour, LLC (E.D. Tex.) – Defended Contour in a five-patent case relating to video compression technologies.
Defended a multinational electronics company in a W.D. Tex. patent infringement litigation regarding keypad technology.
Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc. (D. Del.) – Represented Contour against GoPro in a patent infringement lawsuit related to wearable digital video cameras.
Uusi, LLC v. The United States of America (C.F.C. / PTAB) – Defended third party defendant AM General, LLC in a patent infringement case brought under 28 U.S.C. Section 1498 relating to eight patents concerning diesel engine technology and represented AM General in four related Inter Partes Review proceedings.
Venadium LLC v. Harman International Industries Inc. (E.D Tex.) – Successfully defended Harman in a patent infringement suit relating to Bluetooth technology. Complaint was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after Harman filed a motion to dismiss based on a licensing defense.
Rosetta-Wireless Corp. v. Motorola Mobility Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill.) – Defending Motorola Mobility Inc. in a patent infringement case brought by a non-practicing entity regarding smartphone devices.
Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Spansion Inc. et al. (No. 14-cv-01890, N.D. Cal.) – Defended Spansion in a patent infringement case adverse to Macronix, relating to seven patents directed to flash memory devices.
MMR v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (C.D. Cal. / Fed. Cir. / PTAB) – Represented Allscripts Healthcare Solutions in patent infringement suit relating to electronic health records. Obtained summary judgment of invalidity of both asserted patents, and cancellation of all asserted claims in parallel Covered Business Method Review proceeding.
Defended a major consumer electronics company in litigation regarding cryptographic protocols.
Patent licensing dispute with Rockstar Consortium – Represented several multiple system operators (MSOs) in licensing negotiations with non-practicing entity Rockstar regarding patents formerly owned by Nortel Networks.
Patent licensing dispute with Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC – Represented Bright House Networks in licensing dispute with non-practicing entity Innovatio regarding patents relating to the IEEE 802.11 wireless networking standard.
Cambrian Science v. Cox Communications, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal.) – Defended Cox Communications in a patent infringement case involving photonic integrated circuits.
Digimedia v. Cox Radio, et al. (D. Del.) – Defended Cox Radio in a patent infringement case involving digital music broadcast systems.
Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Nos. C10-01823 and C11-00595, W.D. Wash.) – Representing Motorola Mobility, Inc. in multiple ongoing cases against Microsoft regarding patents related to features and functionality of computer, mobile device, and video game operating systems and software, as well as contractual disputes regarding licensing negotiations and obligations to standards-setting organizations.
Spark Networks USA, LLC v. Humor Rainbow, Inc. et al. (No. 2:11-cv-01430, C.D. Cal.) – Represented Spark Networks (operator of various online dating websites such as JDate) in a lawsuit against two competitors involving Spark’s patent for a computerized anonymous matching system. Both defendants settled prior to the close of discovery after Spark successfully opposed a Bilski-based motion to dismiss.
Activision TV, Inc. v. Richardson Electronics, Ltd. et al. (No. 1:10-cv-03483, N.D. Ill.) – Defended NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc. against claims of infringement of two patents related to remote display advertising systems. The parties amicably resolved their dispute prior to a claim construction hearing and after NECDS filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the patents-in-suit.
Huntair, Inc. v. Greenheck Fan Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-00277, W.D Wis.) – Represented Huntair in a successful assertion of a patent relating an airflow measuring system for centrifugal fans. The defendant, a Huntair competitor, settled prior to the close of discovery.
Motorola, Inc. v. VTech Communications Inc., et al. (No. 5:07-cv-00171, E.D. Tex.) – Represented Motorola, Inc. in a lawsuit involving utility and design patents related to telecommunications products and features. VTech settled a month prior to trial.

Credentials

Education

JD, with honors, The George Washington University Law School
BS (Interdisciplinary Engineering and Management), with great distinction, Clarkson University

Admissions

District of Columbia, 2009
New York, 2009
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 2005
Supreme Court of the United States, 2014
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2024
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2009
U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 2015
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, 2017
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2012
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2009

Publications

Co-authored, "Complying with California Climate Disclosure legislation in 12 steps," Global Relay Intelligence & Practice (October 30, 2024)
Co-author, "Takeaways from the Inaugural Year of the EU Unified Patent Court," IP Litigator (October 1, 2024)
Quoted, "Mandatory funding disclosures could be a ‘treasure trove’ for litigators," Managing Intellectual Property (October 18, 2024)
Co-author, “Takeaways from the Inaugural Year of the EU Unified Patent Court,” IP Litigator (September-October 2024)
Quoted, “High Court Petition Increases Scrutiny on Import Ban Requirement, ” Bloomberg Law (September 10, 2024)
Co-author, “Litigation, Professional Perspective - Section 337 Unfair Import Investigations After the Sunsetting of Chevron – Changes on the Horizon?” Bloomberg Law (August 2024)
Co-author, “Section 337 Unfair Import Investigations After the Sunsetting of Chevron – Changes on the Horizon?” Bloomberg Law (August 29, 2024)
Quoted, "The Biggest Copyright Decisions of 2024: A Midyear Report", Law360 (July 25, 2024)
Quoted, "What SCOTUS ruling could mean for IP policy challenges" ManagingIP (July 5, 2024)
Quoted, "Patent stock-take: UPC monitoring and calming 'nervous' clients" ManagingIP (July 2, 2024)
Quoted, “The Biggest Copyright Decisions of 2024: A Midyear Report,” Law360 (July 25, 2024)
Quoted, "Chevron's End May Put Target On ITC And Patent Office Policy," Law360 (June 28, 2024)
Quoted, "Justices' SEC Ruling Reaffirms Oil States For Patent Attorneys," Law360 (June 27, 2024)
Quoted, “What SCOTUS Ruling Could Mean for IP Policy Challenges,” Managing Intellectual Property (July 5, 2024)
Quoted, “Patent Stock-Take: UPC Monitoring and Calming Nervous Clients,” Managing Intellectual Property (July 2, 2024)
Quoted, “Chevron's End May Put Target On ITC And Patent Office Policy,” Law360 (June 28, 2024)
Quoted, “Justices’ SEC Ruling Reaffirms Oil States for Patent Attorneys,” Law360 (June 27, 2024)
Quoted, “The PREP Immunity Question Won’t be Decided Yet,” Law360 (May 14, 2024)
Co-author, “High-Profile Investigations at the ITC Indicate its Growing Popularity as a Forum for Obtaining Injunctive Relief,” Intellectual Asset Management and Global Competition Review (April 19, 2024)
Interview, “Post-Termination Remedy Proceedings in ITC Section 337 Investigations,” Thomson Reuters Practical Law (March 6, 2024)
Co-author, “US Discovery Law Aids Response to Patent Court Evidence Demands,” Bloomberg Law (January 30, 2024)
Quoted, “Key Takeaways From Rare Look at Litigation Funding Agreement,” Managing Intellectual Property (January 12, 2024)
Quoted, “Four US Patent Trends to Watch in 2024,” Managing Intellectual Property (January 4, 2024)
Quoted, “Property Patent Trends to Watch in 2024,” Managing Intellectual Property (January 4, 2024)
Co-author, “Using US Discovery Law to Help Satisfy Unified Patent Court Evidentiary Demands,” Bloomberg Law (January 2024)
Quoted, “Counsel Mull Due Diligence Strategies After NPE Slammed in Court,” Managing Intellectual Property (December 8, 2023)
Co-author, “Advantages of Suing US Government for Patent Infringement Under Sec. 1498,” Bloomberg Law (August 30, 2023)
Quoted, “How US Litigators Can Minimize Patent Damages,” Managing Intellectual Property (August 23, 2023)
Quoted, “Disclosure Debates: Firms and Funders Discuss Transparency Merits,” Managing Intellectual Property (August 4, 2023)
Quoted, “Trade Agency ‘Patent Troll’ Bill Seen as Harmful for IP Owners,” Bloomberg Law (June 6, 2023)
Co-author, “How FTC Green Guides Update Would Alter Advertising Suits,” Law360 (April 13, 2023)
Co-author, “IP Rulings Show Agency Policies May Curb Appellate Review,” Law360 (April 7, 2023)
Quoted, “Ex-Judges Worried About Where COVID Vaccine IP Row Will Go,” Law360 (March 3, 2023)
Quoted, “DoJ Filing in Moderna Patent Case Poses Immunity Questions,” Managing Intellectual Property (February 22, 2023)
Co-author, “How Agency Activity is Impacting Patent Litigation This Year,” Bloomberg Law (February 10, 2023)
Co-author, “ITC Section 337 Investigations: 2022 Highlights and Horizon Issues,” Practical Law Intellectual Property & Technology (January 16, 2023)
Quoted, “Supreme Court Will Again Be Focus on IP World in 2023,” The National Law Journal (December 30, 2022)
Quoted, “Big Verdicts and New Sheriffs: The Year That Was in IP Litigation,” The National Law Journal (December 22, 2022)
Quoted, “Dead in Mid-40s: Law Professor Mourned as ‘Brilliant Scholar,’ ‘Nicest Guy in the World,’” The National Law Journal (October 31, 2022)
Co-author, “Potential Benefits of Adding Attorney Fee-Shifting at the ITC,” Law360 (September 12, 2022)
Quoted, “Senators’ bill seeks to boost patent quality and examination,” ManagingIP (August 3, 2022)
Quoted, “Most Contentious Issue: Tillis Takes Another Stab at Rewriting Patent Eligibility Law,” The National Law Journal (August 3, 2022)
Quoted, “Senators’ Bill Seeks to Boost Patent Quality and Examination,” Managing Intellectual Property (August 3, 2022)
Co-author, “A new era at the PTAB? Director Vidal issues new guidance on discretionary denials of institution,” Westlaw Today (July 22, 2022)
Co-author, “In COVID, Can PREP Act Protection Extend to Patent Suits?” Law360 (June 30, 2022)
Quoted, “Should ITC Be Enjoined From Reviewing SEPs?” Law.com and American Lawyer (May 27, 2022)
Quoted, “Moderna again points at U.S. government in COVID-19 vaccine patent lawsuit,” Reuters (May 24, 2022)
Quoted, “Why Delaware’s Order to Disclose Litigation Funding Matters,” Managing Intellectual Property (April 27, 2022)
Quoted, “Orrin Hatch’s IP Influence Goes Far Beyond Generic Drugs,” Law360 (April 26, 2022)
Quoted, “HHS Urged To Lower Drug Costs By ‘Breaking Patent Barriers,’” Law360 (April 25, 2022)
Quoted, “It’s Another First for ALJs at the International Trade Commission,” The National Law Journal (April 19, 2022)
Quoted, “IP Attorneys Warn District Court 'Playbook' Useless At ITC,” Law360 (January 27, 2022)
Quoted, “This Lateral Move in the ITC Bar Will Cause Two Law Firm Name Changes,” National Law Journal (January 19, 2022)
Co-author, “Patent Eligibility Is Becoming Increasingly Relevant At ITC,” Law360 (November 29, 2021)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art with Law.com's Scott Graham: The Federal Circuit Will Get Another Experienced District Judge,” Law.com (November 5, 2021)
Quoted, “Stark Brings Extensive Patent Experience to Federal Circuit,” Bloomberg Law (November 3, 2021)
Quoted, “Latest Ruling on PTAB Constitutionality Tees Up More Fights,” Law360 (October 14, 2021)
Quoted, “The PTO Could Be Headed to Another Appointments Clause Challenge,” The National Law Journal and Law.com (October 13, 2021)
Co-author, “Constitutional & Administrative Hurdles of a Covid-19 IP Waiver,” Bloomberg Law (September 16, 2021)
Quoted, “Newest ITC Judge Arrives With Deep Experience In IP,” Law360 (September 13, 2021)
Quoted, “ITC Turns to One of Its Own as Next Administrative Law Judge,” National Law Journal (September 13, 2021)
Co-author, “Supreme Court Limits Assignor Estoppel, Making Some Patents Easier to Challenge in Court,” IP Litigator (July-August 2021)
Co-author, “ITC Already Has Authority Offered By Trade Secret Misuse Bill,” Law360 (July 13, 2021)
Co-author, “An Emerging Digital World: The Possibilities and Legal Gray Zones of Non-Fungible Tokens,” Legaltech News and Law.com (June 2, 2021)
Profiled, “The ABCs of the ITC,” Law.com Skilled In the Art (May 21, 2021)
Quoted, “ITC Has Eyes On IP Talent In Search For New Judge” Law360 (April 2, 2021)
Co-author, “Should ITC Adopt Trade Secret Claims Statute Of Limitations?,” Law360 (March 29, 2021)
Quoted, “International Trade Commission Judge Lord to Retire,” Reuters (March 25, 2021)
Quoted, “This week in IP: SCOTUS Hears Arthrex Oral Arguments,” Managing IP (March 5, 2021)
Quoted, “Justices Float Multiple Fixes to Save Patent Judge Appointments,” Bloomberg Law (March 2, 2021)
Quoted, “Is That Your Final Answer? Arthrex Appointments Clause Case Arrives at Supreme Court,” The National Law Journal (February 26, 2021)
Quoted, “Diagnostics firms want American Axle to drive S 101 change,” Managing IP (February 11, 2021)
Co-author, “Hatch-Waxman Venue Issue Still Live After Fed. Circ. Ruling,” Law360 (January 6, 2021)
Quoted, “Fed. Circ. Ruling May Reshape Hatch-Waxman Litigation Map,” Law360 (November 17, 2020)
Quoted, “Patent Reviews in ‘Limbo’ As Supreme Court Takes Case on Judges,” Bloomberg Law (October 14, 2020)
Quoted, “5 Questions From Tuesday's Cert Grant on PTO Judge Appointments,” The National Law Journal and Law.com (October 13, 2020)
Quoted, “COVID-19 Patent Suits Take Sharply Different Approaches,” The Recorder (October 6, 2020)
Co-author, “Bill Curtailing NPE Suits At ITC Could Restructure Licensing,” Law360 (September 16, 2020)
Quoted, “Creative Lawyering Puts Patent Tribunal to Constitutional Test,” Bloomberg Law (September 14, 2020)
Quoted, “Facebook Foiled in Second Attempt to Join Own Patent Case,” Bloomberg Law (September 4, 2020)
Quoted, “Fed. Circ. Says Invalidity Theory Can't Nix ITC Import Ban,” Law360 (July 16, 2020)
Quoted, “Federal Circuit Continues Expanding Appointments Clause Decision,” The National Law Journal (July 7, 2020)
Quoted, “Patent Board Ordered to Redo Boloro Global Application Review,” Bloomberg Law (July 7, 2020)
Quoted, “Adidas Can Appeal PTAB Loss to Nike, Still Comes Up Short,” Bloomberg Law (June 25, 2020)
Co-author, “How Cos. Can Avoid Patent Venue Pitfalls Of Remote Work,” Law360 (June 15, 2020)
Quoted, “Patent Office Panel Gets Appeals Clout After High Court Ruling,” Bloomberg Law (May 27, 2020)
Quoted, “Fed. Cir. Declines to Rehear Cisco-VirnetX Row After PTO Ask,” Bloomberg Law (May 13, 2020)
Quoted, “PTAB Halt To Arthrex Remands Puts Over 100 Cases In Limbo,” Law360 (May 4, 2020)
Cited, “Skilled in the Art,” Law.com (May 1, 2020)
Quoted, “ITC Finds Comcast Infringes TiVo Patent, Bars Imports,” Law360 (April 24, 2020)
Quoted, “US Supreme Court time bar ruling could bring uncertainty to joinder issues,” Managing Intellectual Property (April 22, 2020)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art: Five Takeaways from Thryv v. Click-to-Call,” Law.com (April 21, 2020)
Quoted, “Supreme Court Hands PTO More Power Over AIA Patent Validity Challenges,” The National Law Journal (April 20, 2020)
Co-author, “Golden v. United States Shows That the Federal Circuit Overstepped Its Bounds in Celgene,” IP Watchdog (April 14, 2020)
Quoted, “Federal Reserve Banks Can Challenge Patents, Fed. Cir. Says,” Bloomberg Law (April 10, 2020)
Co-author, “INSIGHT: The PREP Act May Ward Off Coronavirus-Related Patent Infringement Claims,” Bloomberg Law (April 10, 2020)
Quoted, “Trump Urged to Limit Patent Rights on Ventilators, Treatments,” Bloomberg News (April 9, 2020)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art,” Law.com’s “Skilled in the Art” (April 7, 2020)
Co-author, “What if Gov’t Allows Patent Infringement for COVID-19 Drugs?” Law360 (April 1, 2020)
Quoted “Senate Bill Would Expand Term For COVID-19 Treatment IP,” Law360 (April 1, 2020)
Quoted, “Federal Circuit Makes It Official on PTAB Appointments,” National Law Journal (March 23, 2020)
Quoted, “Justices, Congress Might Tackle PTAB Constitutionality Next,” Law360 (March 23, 2020)
Quoted, “Federal Circuit Says No to Joinder in Facebook Row,” Bloomberg Law (March 18, 2020)
Quoted, “Fed. Circ. Says Google Servers Don't Justify Venue In EDTX,” Law360 (February 13, 2020)
Quoted, “2 Federal Circuit Judges Have 'Grave Doubts' About Arthrex Remedy,” The National Law Journal (February 3, 2020)
Quoted, “More Federal Circuit Judges Question PTAB Appointment Ruling,” Bloomberg Law (January 31, 2020)
Quoted, “Arthrex Is for Patent Owners Only, Federal Circuit Rules,” The National Law Journal (January 29, 2020)
Co-author, “ITC Decision Shows Importance Of Public Interest For Biotech,” Law360 (January 21, 2020)
Quoted, “GE’s Supreme Court Appeal Plan Tests Patent Challenge Tactics,” Bloomberg Law (January 21, 2020)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art: 4 Possible Moves SCOTUS Can Make on Patent Eligibility,” Law.com’s “Skilled in the Art” (January 7, 2020)
Quoted, “Patent Legislation To Watch In 2020,” Law360 (January 1, 2020)
Quoted, “Patent Eligibility Clarity Tops Attorneys’ New Year’s Wish List,” Bloomberg Law (December 26, 2019)
Quoted, “‘Under a Cloud of Doubt’: Patent Practices Pivot Following the Federal Circuit’s ‘Arthrex’ Decision,” The National Law Journal (December 20, 2019)
Co-author, “ITC May Be Straying From Traditional Exclusion Order Test,” Law360 (December 17, 2019)
Quoted, “A PTAB Precedent, If You Can Keep It,” Law.com’s “Skilled in the Art” (December 10, 2019)
Quoted, “Justices to Weigh Patent Board’s Power Over Time-Based Trials” Bloomberg Law (December 9, 2019)
Quoted, “Celgene Corp. v. Peter: Should the Federal Circuit Leave PTAB ‘Patent Takings’ Issue for Another Day?” IPWatchdog (November 21, 2019)
Co-author, “Opportunities Abound In Patent Litigation Funding At The ITC,” Law360 (November 6, 2019)
Quoted, “Surveying The Fallout From The PTAB Constitutionality Ruling,” Law360 (November 1, 2019)
Quoted, “Texas Verdict May Pave Path to More Juries Judging Patents,” Bloomberg Law (October 3, 2019)
Quoted, “SCOTUS' 2019 IP Cases Won't Be Boring, Law Professors Say,” The National Law Journal (September 27, 2019)
Quoted, “States Can’t Invoke Immunity as Plaintiffs to Pick Patent Venue,” Bloomberg Law (September 5, 2019)
Co-author, “Supreme Court Holds That the Government is Not a “Person” With Standing to Bring AIA Post-Grant Patent Challenges,” IP Litigator (July-August 2019)
Quoted, “Fed. Circ. Walks Back ITC Trademark Preclusion Ruling,” Law360 (August 14, 2019)
Co-author, “Next Steps After Celgene: Federal Circuit Ruling on Takings Clause and IPRs Leaves Open Questions,” IPWatchdog (August 7, 2019)
Quoted, “IPR of pre-AIA patents isn’t unconstitutional, finds Fed Circuit,” Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review(July 31, 2019)
Quoted, “Federal Circuit: No PTAB Immunity for Pre-AIA Patents,” The National Law Journal (July 30, 2019)
Quoted, “Fed. Circ. Backs Retroactive IPRs, But The Fight Isn't Over,” Law360 (July 30, 2019)
Quoted, “Zombie Patents: The 101 Sequel?” Law.com’s “Skilled in the Art” (July 26, 2019)
Quoted, “GE Can’t Appeal Decision Upholding Competitor’s Patent,” Bloomberg Law (July 10, 2019)
Quoted, “State-Held Patents Fair Game At PTAB After Fed. Circ. Ruling,” Law360 (June 17, 2019)
Quoted, “Fed Circuit rules against university in state sovereign immunity appeal,” World Intellectual Property Review (June 17, 2019)
Quoted, “Immunity No Defense for State Universities in Patent Challenges,” Bloomberg Law (June 14, 2019)
Quoted, “US Supreme Court: Government Is Not a Person Who Can Challenge Patents,” Managing Intellectual Property (June 11, 2019)
Quoted, “A Second Look at Return Mail,” Law.com’s “Skilled in the Art” (June 11, 2019)
Quoted, “High Court Shuts Patent Office Door on Government Challenges,” Bloomberg Law (June 10, 2019)
Quoted, “Sotomayor Joins Conservatives in Key Patent Ruling,” The National Law Journal (June 10, 2019)
Quoted, “High Court Leaves Gov't With Few Patent Challenge Options,” Law360 (June 10, 2019)
Quoted, “SCOTUS Decision Limits Government’s Ability to Defend Itself in Patent Suits Say Lawyers,” World Intellectual Property Review (June 11, 2019)
Quoted, “Plan to Change Patent Eligibility Poses Legal Risks, Lawyers Say,” Bloomberg Law (June 4, 2019)
Quoted, “Fed. Circ. Created A 'Big Mess' With ITC Preclusion Ruling,” Law360 (May 28, 2019)
Co-author, “Federal Circuit Ruling Creates Circuit Split on ITC Preclusion,” Law360 (May 24, 2019)
Co-author, “United States: Paying Just Compensation for “Taking” Patents?” Kluwer Patent Blog (May 21, 2019)
Co-author, “What Fed. Circ. False Ad Ruling Means For Section 337 Claims,” Law360 (May 14, 2019)
Quoted, “Segway prevails in Fed Circuit TM appeal,” World Intellectual Property Review (May 10, 2019)
Quoted, “Scooting Toward a Circuit Split,” Law.com’s “Skilled in the Art” (May 10, 2019)
Quoted, “Segway Trademarks Infringed by ‘Swagway’ Hoverboards,” Bloomberg Law (May 9, 2019)
Quoted, “Federal Circuit Hands Amarin a Bitter Pill in Trade Fight Over Fish-Oil Supplements,” Reuters (May 2, 2019)
Quoted, “ADVERTISING—Fed. Cir.: ‘Unfair’ dietary supplement labeling claim precluded by FDCA,” Antitrust Law Daily (May 2, 2019)
Quoted, “ITC Can’t Referee Food and Drug Competition Before FDA Does,” National Law Journal (May 1, 2019)
Quoted, “Federal Circuit Backs ITC’s Refusal to Probe False Ad Claims,” Law360 (May 1, 2019)
Co-author, “Supreme Court Affirms Secret Sales Are Still Prior Art, Can Bar Patenting,” IP Litigator (March/April 2019)
Quoted, “License Agreement Precluded PTAB Petition, Federal Circuit Rules,” The Recorder (April 19, 2019)
Quoted, “Interactive Brokers Knock Out E-Trading Patents on Appeal” Bloomberg Law (April 18, 2019)
Co-author, “Fee Award Highlights Patent Litigation In Claims Court,” Law360 (April 15, 2019)
Quoted, “The Federal Circuit In 2018: A By-The-Numbers Snapshot,” Law360 (March 26, 2019)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art: Your Tax Dollars at Work: U.S. Ordered to Pay $4.3 Million Fee Award,” Law.com (March 22, 2019)
Quoted, “Sovereign Immunity Spotlight Shifting to High Court,” Law.com’s “Skilled in the Art” (March 11, 2019)
Quoted, “Keeping a Lid on Pandora’s Box: Is the US Government a Person?” Managing Intellectual Property (February 28, 2019)
Quoted, “Junior Justices Question Feds’ Use of America Invents Act,” National Law Journal and The Recorder (February 19, 2019)
Quoted, “Supreme Court Case Could Let Government Fight Patents as People,” Bloomberg Law (February 14, 2019)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art: Judge Busts Novel FRAND Theory; Unified Weighs In on Video Codec Royalties; Still No Gusher From Oil States,” Law.com (February 1, 2019)
Co-author, “Federal Circuit Medical Device IP Case Highlights ITC Tools,” Law360 (January 29, 2019)
Quoted, “Patents Aren't Property, Judge Says In Axing $100M AIA Suit,” Law360 (January 29, 2019)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art: Federal Circuit Finally Gets Some Love from SCOTUS,” Law.com (January 22, 2019)
Quoted, “Helsinn Loses Supreme Court Bid to Revive Patents on Aloxi,” Bloomberg Law (January 22, 2019)
Quoted, “Up Next at SCOTUS: My Executive Branch Can Beat Up Your Executive Branch,” The National Law Journal and Law.com (December 21, 2018)
Quoted, “Here’s What The Next Congress Might Do On Patents,” Law360 (November 7, 2018)
Quoted, “AIA Case At High Court May Be About More Than Patents,” Law360 (October 30, 2018)
Quoted, “High Court to Decide if US Government Can Join the PTAB Party,” The Recorder (October 29, 2018)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art: A Farewell to Judge Jeremy Fogel,” Law.com (October 12, 2018)
Co-author, “USITC: A Powerful Forum for Biologics Patent Owners,” Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (October 10, 2018)
Quoted, “Judge Stark: Yes, WesternGeco Applies Broadly,” Law.com’s “Skilled in the Art” (October 12, 2018)
Quoted, “USPTO Patent-Eligibility Revamp May Face Court Skepticism,” Law360 (September 25, 2018)
Quoted, “Kennedy Pushed for Flexibility in Patent Law as Justice,” Bloomberg Law’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (June 27, 2018)
Quoted, “Supreme Court Expands Patent Damages Beyond US Borders, Narrowly,” National Law Journal (June 22, 2018)
Quoted, “US Supreme Court Allows Award of Foreign Lost Profits Patent Damages,” Managing Intellectual Property (June 22, 2018)
Quoted, “Government Lawyers Can't Agree on Limit of ITC Jurisdiction,” The National Law Journal (June 11, 2018)
Quoted, “Has Oil States Been Overruled,” Law.com’s “Skilled in the Art” (June 6, 2018)
Quoted, “Fed. Circ. Judges' Plea To Reps Shows Patent-Eligibility Angst,” Law360 (June 4, 2018)
Quoted, “Allergan's Sovereign Immunity Patent Ploy Faces Legal Reckoning,” Bloomberg BNA’s Patent Trademark & Copyright Journal (June 4, 2018)
Quoted, “Patent Owners Face Long Odds In AIA Review Takings Case,” Law360 (May 25, 2018)
Co-author, “The Future of Antitrust Claims at the ITC,” Law360 (May 15, 2018)
Quoted, “US Gov't Hit With $100M Class Action Over AIA Reviews,” Law360 (May 11, 2018)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art: Spawn of Oil States,” Law.com (May 11, 2018)
Quoted, “Patent Owner Launches Takings Class Action in Wake of SCOTUS Ruling,” The Recorder (May 11, 2018)
Cited, “Skilled in the Art: What the Federal Circuit Is Saying About PTAB Shake-Up,” Law.com (May 4, 2018)
Author, “A Path Less Traveled: Where Oil States Meets Bike Trails,” Law360 (May 2, 2018)
Quoted, “Patents, Extra-Territorial,” IP Pro Patents (May 2, 2018)
Quoted, “Despite Status Quo in Oil States Decision, SCOTUS Shakes Up Patent Litigation,” Legal Times (April 25, 2018)
Quoted, “How The End Of PTAB Partial Reviews Will Impact Courts,” Law360 (April 25, 2018)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art: Forget Oil States. It's Time to Get SAS-sy,” Law.com (April 25, 2018)
Quoted, “SCOTUS Oil States decision may raise more challenges to IPR: lawyers,” World Intellectual Property Review (April 25, 2018)
Quoted, “Supreme Court Finds IPRs Constitutional, 7-2,” Managing Intellectual Property (April 25, 2018)
Quoted, “Threats to Patent Office Reviews Remain After Supreme Court Ruling,” Bloomberg Law Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (April 24, 2018)
Quoted, “Industry Reaction to Supreme Court Decision in Oil States v. Green Energy,” IP Watchdog (April 24, 2018)
Quoted, “SCOTUS: patent case sparks concerns over international relations,” World IP Review (April 17, 2018)
Quoted, “SCOTUS Interested in Global Affects of WesternGeco v ION Geophysical,” IP Pro Patents (April 17, 2018)
Quoted, “US Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Extraterritorial Lost Profit Damages,” Managing Intellectual Property (April 17, 2018)
Quoted, “Justices Press Both Sides Over Foreign Patent Damages,” Law360 (April 16, 2018)
Quoted, “Quick Patent Decisions at Risk in Appeals Court Rulings,” Bloomberg Law’s World IP Report and Bloomberg Law’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (April 11, 2018)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art: The Section 101 Case You've Never Heard Of. Plus, PTAB Predictions,” Law.com’s “Skilled in the Art” (March 30, 2018)
Quoted, “In Surprising Move, PTAB Tackles Tribal Immunity Head-On,” Law360 (February 26, 2018)
Quoted, “Fed. Circ. Finds Another Alice Ruling Came Too Soon,” Law360 (February 14, 2018)
Co-author, “Exploring Interplay Between PTAB and Claims Court: Part 1, Part 2 & Part 3,” Law360 (February 5-7, 2018)
Quoted, “High Court Case Could Open New World Of Patent Damages,” Law360 (January 16, 2018)
Quoted, “Skilled in the Art: Is PTAB Asking for 'Oil States' Trouble With Ruling on Sovereign Immunity?,” Law.com (January 3, 2018)
Quoted, “PTAB Rules on Sovereign Immunity and Not Just for Tribes,” Law.com Skilled in the Art (January 2, 2018)
Quoted, “Patent Litigation Trends to Watch in 2018,” Law360 (January 1, 2018)
Co-author, “Looking Beyond Patents at the International Trade Commission – Is the ITC an Underutilized Forum,” IP Litigator (November-December 2017)
Quoted, “PTAB Limits Value of Sovereign Immunity Patent Deals,” Law360 (December 21, 2017)
Quoted, “State University Loses Immunity, Faces Patent Office Challenge,” Bloomberg BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (December 21, 2017)
Quoted, “U.S. Administrative Court Deals Major Blow to Patent Transfer Deals,” Reuters (December 19, 2017)
Co-author, “Shielded by Sovereignty,” American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal (Fall 2017)
Quoted, “Inside Track: Is a Top Uber In-House Lawyer Caught Up in a Cover-Up?,” Law.com (November 29, 2017)
Cited, “Comcast X1 Set-Top Boxes Infringed 2 Rovi Patents, ITC Says,” Law360 (November 22, 2017)
Co-author, “Amarin Complaint Demonstrates Limits Of ITC Jurisdiction,” Law360 (November 22, 2017)
Quoted, “Federal Circuit says TC Heartland allows for forum transfer in Harvard patent case,” Reuters (November 15, 2017)
Quoted, “Federal Circuit Sends Muddy Message on 'TC Heartland' Venue Waivers,” The National Law Journal (November 15, 2017)
Quoted, “Micron Ruling May Spark New Wave Of Venue Fights,” Law360 (November 15, 2017)
Quoted, “Patent Venue Ruling Gives Another Chance to Transfer Cases,” Bloomberg BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (November 15, 2017)
Co-author, “TC Heartland – An Intervening Change in the Law?” Bloomberg BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (September 29, 2017)
Quoted, “Home office not viable for jurisdiction in East Texas patent case – Fed Circ.,” Reuters (September 22, 2017)
Quoted, “Fed. Circ. Ruling To Force More Patent Cases Out Of EDTX,” Law360 (September 22, 2017)
Quoted, “Federal Circuit: No More Loosey-Goosey Rules on Patent Venue,” The National Law Journal (September 21, 2017)
Co-author, “Supreme Court’s TC Heartland Decision Will Move Venue Out of E.D. Texas,” IP Litigator (July-August 2017)
Quoted, “After 'TC Heartland,' Lawyers, Courts and Clients Race to Shape New Venue Rules,” The National Law Journal (August 17, 2017)
Quoted, “MDL Sought in Patent Cases in Wake of SCOTUS Decision Limiting Venue,” California Recorder and Texas Lawyer (August 14, 2017)
Author, “Intellectual Property Legislation Update: The Trade Protection Not Troll Protection Act of 2017,” Ropes & Gray Alert (July 31, 2017)
Author, “Intellectual Property Litigator Addresses Impact of U.S. Senate’s STRONGER Patents Act in Inside Counsel,” Ropes & Gray Alert (July 25, 2017)
Quoted, “The Impact of the STRONGER Patents Act of 2017,” Inside Counsel (July 24, 2017)
Author, “Patent Legislation on the Hill: Senators Introduce the STRONGER Patents Act of 2017,” Ropes & Gray Alert (June 23, 2017)
Quoted, “Law Maker Says East Texas Judge Ignored Supreme Court Venue Decision,” Reuters (July 14, 2017)
Quoted, “Gilstrap’s Venue Test an Encouraging Sign for Patent Owners,” Law360 (July 6, 2017)
Quoted, “Texas Judge Sets Patent Venue Test for a Post-TC Heartland World,” The Texas Lawyer (July 3, 2017)
Quoted, “4 Things You Should Know About The STRONGER Patents Act,” Law360 (June 30, 2017)
Quoted, “After Years of Setbacks, Patent Owners Try to Turn Tide in Congress,” The National Law Journal (June 28, 2017)
Cited, “Comcast, Manufacturers Infringe 2 Rovi Patents: ITC Judge,” Law360 (May 31, 2017)
Quoted, “Seismic Shift in U.S. Patent Venue Practice,” Intellectual Property Magazine (May 25, 2017)
Quoted, “Timing Key for Companies Hoping to Flee EDTX Post TC Heartland,” Law360 (May 24, 2017)
Quoted, “Where to File Patent Complaints After High Court Venue Ruling?” Bloomberg BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (May 25, 2017)
Quoted, “Patent Plaintiffs See Way Around U.S. Supreme Court Ruling,” Reuters, CNBC.com and New York Times (May 23, 2017)
Co-author: “Not All NPEs are Created Equal,” Intellectual Property Magazine (May 2017)
Author, “Potential Intellectual Property Issues on the Table in the 115th Congress,” Ropes & Gray Alert (February 6, 2017)
Cited, “PTAB Rules Government Contractor Isn’t Subject to IPR Time-Bar,” Law360 (November 7, 2016)
Co-author “Reverse Patent Trolls’: Patent Law’s Newest Strategy Unfolds” Bloomberg BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (May 29, 2015)
Co-author, “Audio Processing Is An ITC Investigation To Watch,” Law360 (April 7, 2015)
Co-author, “How PTAB Proceedings Could Impact the ITC’s Public Interest Analysis,” Bloomberg BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (April 3, 2015)
Co-author, “Promega: Can Inducer And Infringer Be The Same Party Now?,” Law360 (March 16, 2015)
Co-author, “Proposed cost-shifting in patent infringement cases,” InsideCounsel Magazine (October 17, 2013)
Co-author, “Protecting 'End Users' from Patent Infringement Actions,” InsideCounsel (September 18, 2013)
Co-author, “Establishing Federal Rules of Patent Procedure,” InsideCounsel (August 20, 2013)
Co-author, “Design Patents May Be Next Troll Target," Today’s General Counsel (June 26, 2013)
Co-author, “The Marking Statute Should Cover All Patent Claims,” Law360 (March 14, 2013)
Co-author, “MOOCs and Consequences,” College Planning and Management Magazine (January 2013)
Co-author, “The Implications of Patent Rulings with Limited Remedies,” The Wall Street Journal All Things Digital (January 30, 2013)

Presentations

Presenter, “Navigating 337 Investigations: Pathways to Success at the ITC,” IPWatchdog LIVE 2024 (October 1, 2024)
Presenter, “Examining Congressional Reform Efforts at the ITC,” ACI Annual International Trade Commission (ITC) Litigation & Enforcement Conference, Washington, D.C. (May 29–30, 2024)
Moderator, “Wi-Fi and IoT Licensing: The New SEP Battlefield,” 12^th Annual Patent Administrative Law Conference (April 24, 2024)
Presenter, “It’s Not Over at the Final Determination: Post-Exclusion Order ITC and CBP Proceedings,” Intellectual Property Owners Association (June 6, 2023)
Speaker, “Improving and Streamlining Patent Enforcement in America,” IPWatchdog Patent Litigation Masters 2023 (May 15, 2023)
Moderator, “Assessing the Trend of Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) at the ITC: What ITC Practitioners Need to Know,” American Conference Institute’s Annual Practitioners’ Think Tank on International Trade Commission Litigation & Enforcement (March 30, 2023)
Moderator, “Gauging the Importance and Use of the NEXT Advocates Program for Less Experienced Attorneys,” American Conference Institute’s Annual Practitioners’ Think Tank on International Trade Commission Litigation & Enforcement (March 30, 2023)
Speaker, “In-House Round Table: Insights and Best Practices to Effectively Manage ITC Actions and Maintain Relationships with Outside Counsel,” ACI ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference (June 7-8, 2022)
Speaker, “International Trade Commission: A New Frontier for Enforcement?” MIP IP & Innovation Summit (May 24, 2022)
Speaker, "337 Investigations: Leverage & Strategy at the ITC," IP Watchdog Patent Litigation Masters (May 23-24, 2022)
Speaker, “Litigating in Parallel with the PTAB: Do’s and Don’ts for Concurrent ITC and District Court Litigation,” IP Watchdog PTAB Masters Symposium (January 24-27, 2022)
Speaker, “Drug Pricing—Spotlight on Compulsory Licensing/Eminent Domain Issues,” Pharmaceutical Compliance Congress (September 29, 2021)
Speaker, “The Growing Importance of Trade Secrets at the ITC,” IP Watchdog Conference (September 12-14, 2021)
Speaker, “ITC Year in Review: Assess the Top 10 ITC Developments for 2021 and Forecasts for 2022,” ACI’s Practitioners' Think Tank on ITC Litigation and Enforcement (July 27, 2021)
Speaker, “Insights from the PTAB Bench,” Ropes & Gray PTAB Webinar (February 24, 2021)
Speaker “A Conversation Series Exploring the Regulatory Impacts of the 2020 Election: 2020 Election and Intellectual Property,” R&G Transition Tuesdays Webinar (November 24, 2020)
Speaker, “PTAB and Trademark Litigation Committees and Arthrex Task Force Constitutional Issues Flowing from the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Arthrex on PTAB and TTAB Proceedings,” AIPLA Annual Meeting (October 22-30, 2020)
Speaker, “Interests and Activity of the Sovereign vis-à-vis Private Intellectual Property Rights,” IPO Annual Meeting (September 21, 2020)
Speaker, “Patent Venue Pitfalls of Remote Work Arrangements: Application of Cray Factors, Risk Mitigation, Court Treatment,” Strafford Webinar (September 3, 2020)
Speaker, “Case Studies on Developments in Satisfying the Domestic Industry Requirement,” ACI’s 12th Annual Practitioners’ Think Tank on ITC Litigation and Enforcement (August 24-25, 2020)
Speaker, “Latest Developments in Awarding Attorneys’ Fees Under Section 285,” California Lawyers Association Webinar (August 28, 2019)
Speaker, “The Summer of Patentable Subject Matter,” Ropes & Gray Webinar (June 17, 2019)
Speaker, “Examining Technology Transactions Under the Lens of the America Invents Act,” 6^th Annual MIP International Women’s Leadership Forum (June 6, 2019)
Coordinator, “Strategic Implication of Parallel Proceedings in the District Courts, ITC, and PTAB,” AIPLA Spring Meeting (May 15-17, 2019)
Speaker, “Preparing Your Strategy for a Shifting Pro-Patent Environment," MIP US Patent Forum (April 3-4, 2019)
Speaker, “How to Make "Connections" and "Friends" in 140 Characters or Less: Social Networking for Lawyers," Federal Circuit Bar Association Conference (March 12, 2019)
Speaker, “Supreme Court Update: Oil States & SAS Institute: The Aftermath,” Ropes & Gray Webinar (May 1, 2018)
Speaker, “Cease and Desist Orders: Practical Insight for Complainants and Respondents,” ACI Expert Forum on ITC Litigation and Enforcement (March 6, 2018)
Speaker, “Roadblock PTAB: Litigation Strategies & IPR Antidotes,” Ropes & Gray Webinar (February 22, 2018)
Speaker, “An Examination of Section 337: The ITC – Going Beyond Patent Litigation,” Momentum IP Counsel Exchange (December 12, 2017)
Speaker, “Supreme Court Debrief: Oil States and SAS Institute,” Ropes & Gray Webinar (November 28, 2017)
Speaker, “Defend Trade Secrets Act,” Managing IP 2017 US Patent Forum (March 23, 2017)
Speaker, “Podcast- Supreme Court Preview: TC Heartland v. Kraft,” Ropes & Gray Alert (March 22, 2017)
Speaker, “Patent Enforcement by Non-Practicing Entities,” AIPLA Quarterly Journal Symposium (March 17, 2017)
Speaker, “How to Resolve the Challenging Interplay Between Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and ITC Litigation,” ACI Expert Forum on ITC Litigation & Enforcement (February 23, 2017)
Speaker, “In-Depth Case Review and The Future of Section 337 Enforcement,” ACI Expert Forum on ITC Litigation & Enforcement (February 22, 2017)

Awards

Best Lawyers in America (2025)
Managing Intellectual Property Americas Awards “U.S. Firm of the Year – PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)” (2024)
Legal 500 (2019, 2021-2024)
Chambers Global (2023-2024)
Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business (2021-2024)
IAM Patent 1000 – The World's Leading Patent Practitioners (2023-2024)
Managing Intellectual Property "Rising Star" (2021)
The National Law Journal “D.C. Rising Stars” (2020)
Super Lawyers Rising Star (2018-2021)