Alexander P. Ott

I'll research this attorney before drafting the summary.

Let me dig deeper into his education, bar admissions, and specific case outcomes.

Let me verify the specific cases and ITC outcomes.

Alexander P. Ott — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas and side preference. Ott's practice centers on high-technology patent disputes, with recurring work in semiconductors, wireless networking/cellular (3G, 4G/LTE, mesh networking), LED lighting, consumer electronics, software, and electrical/mechanical devices; his firm bios also list pharmaceuticals. The authoritative case list here contains only a single tracked appearance — as backup counsel on the plaintiff/petitioner side in Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SA (a medical-device/heart-pump dispute) — so it understates his footprint considerably. Web-sourced firm descriptions show he works both sides, with a pronounced ITC defense lean (he has represented respondents Target, Feit Electric, ZTE, Analog Devices, and Koki Holdings) alongside complainant-side representations (Cricut, Rovi Guides, Spansion). His ITC practice is frequently pitched as a primary specialty rather than a satellite of district court work.

Firm context. Ott is currently a partner in Winston & Strawn's Litigation Department and its ITC Practice in Washington, D.C., which he joined in April 2026. He arrived from McDermott Will & Emery, where he had been a partner. His firm bio expressly notes that some listed matters were handled at prior firms, and the Abbott v. Miracor matters predate his move to Winston.

Notable matters and outcomes. His ITC docket includes Certain Gas Spring Nailers (Inv. No. 337-TA-1082, for Koki/Hitachi Koki), Certain Inflatable Products (337-TA-1009, Bestway), Certain Filament LEDs (337-TA-1172 and -1220, for Target and Feit Electric), Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products (337-TA-1131 and -1138, for Analog Devices/Linear Technology and ZTE), Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-735, Spansion), and the Interactive Program Guide investigations (337-TA-801/820/845, Rovi Guides). His firm bio claims numerous no-violation determinations for respondent clients, but I could not independently verify specific final determinations from the sources reviewed. On the PTAB side, his Bestway/Intex work in the Team Worldwide airbed IPR series is the most consequential item I can trace: the Board initially found the challenged claims not shown unpatentable, then on remand held the '018 patent claims unpatentable, a result the Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential 2023 decision — a petitioner-side win. In the tracked Abbott v. Miracor matter, the PTAB instituted review across a six-IPR campaign (IPR2025-00096, -00112 through -00116) challenging Miracor's heart-assist patents, running parallel to Miracor's infringement suit against Abbott/Thoratec in the N.D. Ill. I found no reported final written decisions or Federal Circuit outcome for that campaign.

PTAB/IPR experience. Yes — this is a regular part of his practice, not occasional. Beyond the Abbott/Miracor and Koki v. Kyocera Senco (IPR2025-00261–00264) petitions, he has acted as petitioner for Unified Patents (challenges to Realtime Data and Smart Authentication IP) and Diablo Technologies (v. Netlist memory-module patents), and as patent owner for Samsung Electro-Mechanics in a PGR (AVX v. Samsung Electro-Mechanics, PGR2017-00010). He has also published Federal Circuit/ITC case commentary on McDermott's IP Update blog (2020–2022).

Bar and education. Registered patent attorney; B.S.E.E., Georgia Institute of Technology (2005); J.D., Tulane University Law School (2010); admitted in Maryland (2010) and D.C. (2011), plus USPTO registration. (Sourced from his Martindale and firm profiles; listed as a Super Lawyers "Rising Star" 2014–2020.)

Caveat: much of the ITC/PTAB experience summary comes from his own firm bio, which flags that some matters predate his current firm; specific verdicts and determinations beyond the Team Worldwide appeal were not independently verified in the sources reviewed.