Alan Rabinowitz

I'll research this attorney's background before drafting.

Alan Rabinowitz — patent litigation practice summary

Focus areas. Publicly available practice descriptions place Mr. Rabinowitz in the Intellectual Property Litigation group, focused on complex patent matters in federal district courts, the ITC, and the USPTO. His described technology range is electronics- and engineering-heavy: telecommunications and networking (including network-on-chip and wireless telecom patents), semiconductors and memory, computer graphics, image processing, audio/video compression and wireless networking, encryption and digital rights management, and software/hardware generally, plus medical devices such as spinal implants and orthopedic hardware. The single tracked case — Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex., No. 2:25-cv-00557-JRG, a DRAM/memory patent dispute litigated in parallel with an ITC investigation and multiple IPRs) — fits that semiconductor/memory profile.

Side preference. The authoritative tracked data shows 0 plaintiff-side and 1 defendant-side appearance, and the searchable record is consistent with a defense-leaning practice: his reported matters cast him as counsel to Samsung (multiple district court, ITC, and PTAB matters), a leading computer and mobile device company, Paragon 28, and a large consumer electronics company. The main exception in the public record is representation of Biedermann Technologies as the asserting patent owner in an E.D. Va. action against K2M, so the practice is defense-dominant rather than exclusively defense-side.

Firm context and notable matters. The tracked data attributes this appearance to Covington & Burling (pro hac vice), but public records I reviewed identify the Alan Rabinowitz appearing for Samsung in the Netlist matter with Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York) contact information (alan.rabinowitz@kirkland.com; 601 Lexington Ave.), and Kirkland's own site, Legal 500, and PTAB filings list him as a Kirkland IP litigation partner; Covington's Samsung team in that case appears to be separately listed (Garten, Nester). The firm attribution in the tracked data therefore looks like an error — flagged rather than resolved. Notable reported engagements include Samsung matters against Network System Technologies (E.D. Tex.), Dynamics Inc. (SDNY and ITC), Sonrai Memory (ITC), and Pictos Technologies (ITC); the Broadcom/Avago action in C.D. Cal.; the Personalized Media Communications and ZiiLabs actions in E.D. Tex.; Biedermann v. K2M; and Wright Medical v. Paragon 28. In the tracked Netlist case, the docket reflects a stipulation of dismissal filed in the consolidated E.D. Tex. action on August 18, 2026; the terms were not disclosed in the material I reviewed. I found no trial verdict or Federal Circuit result publicly attributable specifically to him, and I would not attribute the widely reported Netlist–Samsung jury results to him without confirming his role.

PTAB / IPR experience. IPR work is a regular part of the practice. He appears in PTAB filings and exhibits — for example, as counsel with Kirkland contact information in the Network System Technologies IPR proceedings (Samsung v. Network System Technologies, IPR2024-00338) and in IPR2025-00892 (Milwaukee Electric Tool v. Klein Tools) — and his reported matters repeatedly pair district court litigation with parallel inter partes reviews involving the same patents.

Bar / education. Not reliably sourced in the materials I reviewed; omitted rather than estimated.