Alexander B. Englehart

I'll research this attorney's background and verify the tracked cases before drafting.

Good background data. Now let me verify the tracked cases and PTAB activity.

Let me verify the ITC component and check for PTAB/Federal Circuit track record.

Summary

Focus areas. Englehart's patent litigation practice centers on consumer electronics and display technology. His two tracked matters involve LCD/display patents and mobile devices: the Light Guide Innovations suits (asserted patents covering backlight units and display devices, e.g., U.S. 8,267,537, filed in E.D. Tex.) and BH Innovations v. HKC Corp., an ITC Section 337 and district court campaign over LCD panel patents originating with Seiko Epson. A firm biography from his prior firm describes litigation experience spanning mobile devices, wireless networking, sporting goods, automotive parts, metallurgy, and cosmetics, plus opinion work and patent prosecution in an electrical/mechanical group. He also has a stated ITC practice and has lectured on ITC procedure.

Side preference. Both sides, with a mild defendant lean in the tracked data (2 defendant appearances vs. 1 plaintiff). The counts overstate the defendant side slightly: the two Light Guide Innovations entries appear to be duplicative tracking of the same E.D. Tex. matter (No. 2:24-cv-00646, later consolidated into a lead case against Walmart). In that matter, Light Guide Innovations is a patent-asserting entity (per Stanford's NPE database), and Englehart appeared for the TCL/TCT defendants — a defense-side role. In BH Innovations v. HKC Corp. he appears plaintiff-side for BH Innovations, a Delaware vehicle tied to IPValue Management's LCD monetization program. So the pattern is operating-company defense against NPEs, alongside representation of a monetization entity as plaintiff.

Firm context. He is Of Counsel at Merchant & Gould, based in the firm's Washington, D.C.-area office, which he joined in April 2024 as part of a five-attorney group (also including Daniel J. Pereira, John S. Kern, Donald R. McPhail, and Eric W. Schweibenz) hired from Oblon to build out ITC, complex IP litigation, and post-grant capabilities. Before that he spent roughly fifteen years at Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt in Alexandria, Virginia, progressing from associate to senior associate to Of Counsel, working in its litigation group and its electrical/mechanical prosecution group. His practice has not been in-house.

Notable matters, PTAB, and credentials. BH Innovations v. HKC Corp. is the most prominent tracked matter: an ITC Section 337 complaint (filed August 2025; the Commission instituted Investigation 337-TA-1462) seeking exclusion and cease-and-desist orders against imported HKC LCD panels and TVs incorporating them (Hisense, TCL, LG Electronics, Vizio, Westinghouse), with parallel district court litigation in E.D. Va. It is an active matter; no outcome is verifiable. On the PTAB side, he is listed on the power of attorney in Coretronic Corp. and Optoma Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2025-00477 (projector/light-source optics); he and his Merchant & Gould colleagues were counsel on a series of related Coretronic/Optoma petitions (IPR2025-00474 through -00477), all of which the Director denied institution in July 2025 on discretionary/Fintiv grounds — an adverse result on the petitioner side, though he was one of several counsel rather than lead. He is a registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 62,031), admitted in Virginia (2008) and Pennsylvania (2022), and admitted before the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, E.D. Va., E.D. Pa., W.D. Tex., and E.D. Mich. He holds a J.D. from the University of Washington School of Law and a B.A. in computer science and mathematics from UC Berkeley, and externed for Judge Randall Rader of the Federal Circuit during law school.

Sourcing note: the case list is authoritative for appearances; the practice description and bar/education details come from firm biographies (Merchant & Gould and Oblon) and are consistent across sources. No verdicts, settlements, or Federal Circuit results attributable to him personally could be verified, and the IPR role is based on listed counsel of record rather than a record of lead argument.