Amanda Brouillette

I'll research this attorney before drafting. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Let me verify a few additional details on her PTAB/IPR work and the Thryv line of cases.

Amanda N. Brouillette — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus and forum. Brouillette is a partner in the Atlanta office of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, where her practice is concentrated in patent litigation. Her firm bio and WIPR profile describe a multi-forum practice spanning the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission, and district courts including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, Delaware, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Southern District of New York, and the Northern District of California, plus Supreme Court work. Technology areas she handles include Wi-Fi and cellular communications, cryptography and data encryption, video compression/processing, software applications, digital transmission systems, OLED technology, and mechanical systems. Earlier iterations of her firm bio also list telecommunications, medical billing, pharmaceuticals (including an ANDA case), and mechanical devices; her undergraduate background is in physics, with optics research.

Side preference. The tracked appearance data reflects a single matter on the plaintiff side, in which she is recorded as counsel. That single data point is not representative of the practice described in public sources: her firm bio and case history describe almost exclusively defense-side representation of operating companies accused of infringement, including Lenovo/Motorola, Cisco, Vantiva, Ring Container, YKK, Cox Communications, Wells Fargo, Sage Software, Suhner, and Mylan. The tracked case is untitled in the underlying data, so it cannot be reconciled against the public record, and the one-appearance count almost certainly understates her actual docket presence. On the verified public record, she is a defense-side litigator rather than an NPE/PAE-side plaintiff's counsel.

Firm context. She has been at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton since at least 2012, when she was a summer associate; she has since risen to partner. Her only other documented law-firm affiliation is a law-school summer associate position at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. She does not appear to have in-house experience.

Notable matters and outcomes. Her most prominent public matter is Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, No. 18-916 (U.S. 2020), in which the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a PTAB timeliness determination under §315(b) is final and nonappealable under §314(d); she was part of the Supreme Court briefing team. She also briefed the Federal Circuit and certiorari-stage proceedings in the sister case addressing the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2) (Ingenio, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, Fed. Cir. No. 2022-1016; cert. petition No. 22-873), in which the Federal Circuit reversed in part on the estoppel question — the disposition of the cert petition is not documented in the sources reviewed. Other verified results include Cambrian Science Corp. v. Cox Communications (C.D. Cal.), where summary judgment and a fee award for the defense were upheld on appeal; TecSec, Inc. v. IBM Corp. (E.D. Va.), where the Kilpatrick team obtained repeated exclusion of the plaintiff's expert on damages; an ITC settlement and full dismissal for Vantiva in Certain Video Game Consoles, Routers and Gateways (Inv. No. 337-TA-1445); and an eight-year Au New Haven v. YKK (S.D.N.Y.) litigation that settled in July 2023. She is currently on the Truesight Communications v. Lenovo (E.D. Tex.) defense and Graham Packaging v. Ring Container (W.D. Ky.) matters.

PTAB/IPR. She has meaningful IPR-adjacent experience — most notably the Thryv and Click-to-Call line, which turned on IPR institution, estoppel, and appealability issues, and a stay pending IPR in Sentius International v. Apple (N.D. Cal.). Her public profile, however, frames her as a district court/ITC litigator rather than as a routine PTAB petitioner's counsel, so the extent of her first-chair IPR practice is not well documented. There is no indication in the sources reviewed that she is a registered patent practitioner before the USPTO.

Bar and education. Admitted in Georgia (2013) and to the Federal Circuit (2021), with district court admissions including E.D. Tex. and M.D. Ga.; J.D., Stanford Law School (2013, with pro bono distinction); B.S. in Physics and B.A. in English, University of Georgia (2010, both summa cum laude).

Note: some biographical details above derive from firm and award-profile pages, which are promotional in nature; case outcomes (settlements, summary judgment, expert exclusions) are drawn from those same firm descriptions and were not independently verified against dockets except where court filings were located.