Adam Steinmetz

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me verify a few specific matters and disambiguate the name.

Adam Steinmetz — Desmarais LLP (Washington, D.C.)

Focus areas. Steinmetz's practice is complex technology and patent disputes, with a pronounced appellate concentration: he specializes in patent appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and also handles district court, International Trade Commission, and PTAB matters. Firm-published descriptions and docket appearances place his technology work across wireless/telecommunications (Bluetooth), computer architecture and semiconductor processors, mainframes, medical imaging and augmented-reality surgical navigation, medical devices, gene sequencing/antibody development, and pharmaceuticals. His undergraduate training is in chemical engineering, which aligns with the life-sciences and medical-device portion of that mix.

Side preference. The authoritative tracked data here is thin — a single appearance, recorded as plaintiff-side and as lead counsel — and that entry is unlabeled, so it cannot be reliably matched to any public docket. Every matter I could independently verify in public records has him on the defendant/respondent side representing operating companies: Abiomed (J&J MedTech), Intel, Fitbit (against Philips), and IBM (against Security First Innovations). The one exception is Medivis, where he represented the patent challenger appealing a PTAB loss against patent owner Novarad. On the available record he reads as a defense-side litigator and an appellate specialist rather than an NPE/PAE-side filer, but the single plaintiff-side tracked entry should be corroborated against the underlying docket before being relied on.

Firm context and notable matters. He joined Desmarais LLP in 2016, left for a Federal Circuit clerkship, rejoined in 2022 to help build the firm's D.C. appellate practice, and was elevated to partner effective January 1, 2025. Reported results: Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp., No. 2024-1794 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2026) — nonprecedential opinion affirming the PTAB on anticipation but reversing and remanding on obviousness/motivation to combine, reviving Medivis's IPR challenge to Novarad's AR surgical-navigation patent (U.S. Pat. No. 11,004,271); the Desmarais team included Steinmetz, John Desmarais, Betty Chen, and Tim Cho. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc., No. 1:17-cv-12311 (D. Mass.) — a complete defense jury verdict on May 28, 2026 finding no infringement (including under the rarely litigated reverse doctrine of equivalents) and invalidity of the asserted claim of U.S. Pat. No. 10,238,783; Steinmetz was a named member of the trial team. He was also on the Federal Circuit appeal team that secured affirmance of summary judgment of noninfringement for Intel as to claims covering most of Intel's desktop and mobile processors, and for a consumer-electronics client in a Bluetooth dispute. He additionally appears on the Philips North America v. Fitbit docket (D. Mass.) and for IBM in Security First Innovations v. IBM (E.D. Va., filed 2025), where he was admitted pro hac vice.

PTAB/IPR and credentials. He appears in PTAB-related work rather than as a high-volume IPR petitioner: the Medivis matter was an IPR appeal, and he has represented clients before the Board; I did not find evidence of a large, recurring IPR/PGR docket under his name, so frequency should be characterized cautiously. Admissions: New York (2013), New Jersey (2013), D.C. (2023), and registered to practice before the USPTO. Education: J.D., Columbia Law School (2012); B.S. chemical engineering, The Cooper Union (2009). Clerkships: Judge Alan D. Lourie, Federal Circuit (2019–2022), and Judge Claire C. Cecchi, D.N.J. (2015–2016). He also maintains a Federal Circuit pro bono veterans-appeals practice.

Caveats: Law360's attorney index separately lists an "Adam D. Steinmetz" as a Ropes & Gray (New York) attorney on a 2012 patent case, JDS Therapeutics v. Pfizer; I could not verify whether that is the same person or a name coincidence, so I have not treated it as confirmed prior-firm history. The "Untitled case" in the tracked list is unresolved.