Amanda J. Hollis

I'll verify the attorney's background and case record before drafting.

Now let me verify the specific tracked cases, which include some unusual party names.

Let me verify the PTAB proceedings and additional notable matters.

Amanda J. Hollis — Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Chicago), IP litigation partner. Her practice spans life sciences and technology: medical devices and diagnostics, biotechnology and chemistry (including biologics and small molecules), and computing/electronics. Verified matters in her tracked docket reflect machine-learning-based property risk assessment software (the Aon Re/Zesty.ai dispute) and continuous glucose monitoring (Abbott v. Dexcom). Kirkland's own bio lists clients including Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer, Baxter, Teva, C.R. Bard, IBM, Samsung and Cisco, and describes her life sciences work in blood analyzers, immunotherapies, vascular/cardiac/spine devices, COVID-19 and other diagnostics, DNA/RNA testing kits and glucose monitors. She has tried cases in federal district courts and before the ITC. I found no evidence of prior law firm affiliations; all verified appearances are at Kirkland & Ellis.

Side preference: mixed, not an NPE/PAE practice. The tracked list shows three plaintiff-side and one defendant-side appearance, but the designation is misleading on its face — in two of the three "plaintiff" matters she is acting for an operating company asserting its own patents (Aon Re, Inc. as patent owner asserting machine-learning patents against Zesty.ai; Abbott Diabetes Care as infringement plaintiff against Dexcom), not for a monetization entity. Her IPR work runs both directions: she has been lead or backup counsel for patent owners (Biscotti in IPR2014-01457/01458; Abbott in Dexcom v. Abbott Diabetes Care, IPR2022-00605) as well as for petitioners (the Genentech/Herceptin challenges; Actavis/Teva). Net, the record reads as a defense-leaning operating-company practice with substantial offensive assertion work, rather than a plaintiff-side NPE orientation.

Notable matters and outcomes. Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.ai, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00201-JFM (D. Del.) — she appeared pro hac vice for Aon Re; on July 15, 2025, Judge John F. Murphy denied Zesty's § 101 motion to dismiss, holding claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,529,029 was not directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one (reported in Bloomberg Law's IP Law Daily and Law360). Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc., C.A. No. 21-977-KAJ and consolidated C.A. No. 22-605-KAJ (D. Del.) — pro hac vice counsel for Abbott; Chambers reports Kirkland acted for Abbott subsidiaries in worldwide patent disputes with Dexcom over CGM technology. Firm-reported results (Kirkland bio; Law360 2018 Rising Star profile), which I could not independently verify in full: a 2017 Delaware jury verdict for C.R. Bard finding no infringement and invalidity of W.L. Gore's stent-graft patent; a 2017 D. Del. win for Abbott against Enzo Life Sciences on written-description/enablement invalidity; and an invalidation of all claims of two patents in the Genentech/Herceptin IPRs, leading to settlement.

PTAB/IPR experience and bar credentials. She appears regularly in AIA proceedings and was lead counsel in numerous IPRs, per firm and Chambers/Chambers-partnered profiles. She is a registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 55,629). Education: J.D., University of North Carolina School of Law; B.S. in biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Two sourcing caveats. First, your case list includes "Unified Patents v. Aon Re, Inc." with Hollis as pro hac vice counsel; I could not locate a public docket matching that caption, so treat it as unverified. Second, the PTAB docket for the Zesty.ai v. Aon Re IPR (IPR2025-01357, institution denied Nov. 20, 2025) lists Greg Gardella and Gardella Alciati as Aon Re's counsel of record rather than Kirkland, so her role in that specific IPR is worth confirming against the firm's own records.