Anthony Van Nguyen

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Anthony Van Nguyen ("Tony Nguyen") — patent litigation practice summary

Specialty / focus areas. Nguyen's practice centers on high-stakes patent litigation involving computer hardware and semiconductor processing. Fish & Richardson's own descriptions of his work cite graphics processing, memory systems, high-performance computing, wireless communication standards, telecommunications, medical devices, and various consumer electronics, plus earlier matters involving digital signal processing in digital televisions, security equipment, ATMs, and manufacturing machinery (Fish & Richardson, principal elevation announcement; Business Wire via Yahoo Finance, June 2024). He has spoken publicly about semiconductor NPE litigation trends, including NPE assertions of end-of-life patents in venues such as the Eastern District of Texas (Managing IP coverage via fr.com).

Side preference. The tracked data is thin — one appearance, on the defense side, as counsel — and should be treated as suggestive rather than statistically meaningful. It is consistent with everything else publicly available: the identifiable matters in which he appears as counsel or as the Fish & Richardson relationship contact are defenses of operating companies (Micron, Samsung, SK hynix, Apple, BiTMICRO-related defense work) against NPE or competitor patent assertions, not NPE-side enforcement. His own quoted comments about positioning the practice "against those types of patents" point the same direction. I found no verified evidence of plaintiff-side or NPE/PAE prosecution work.

Firm context. Nguyen is a principal in the litigation group in Fish & Richardson's Houston office. He began his legal career at Fish, spent roughly a decade there, was elevated to principal in 2020, left the firm in 2023, and rejoined as a principal in June 2024 (Law360 Pulse via fr.com; Business Wire). No other law firm or in-house affiliation appears in the public record; his pre-law-school industry role was as a yield enhancement engineer at Samsung working on DRAM and flash.

Notable matters and outcomes. His most clearly documented case is MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. (N.D. Cal. No. 3:14-cv-03657), a multi-level-cell flash memory dispute in which he appeared pro hac vice for Micron (CourtListener docket). That case produced a reported Federal Circuit decision in 2021 (appeal No. 20-1413) addressing infringement and damages apportionment issues. Beyond that, expert-retention records filed in PTAB proceedings list him as the Fish & Richardson contact on ITC and district court matters including Netlist v. Samsung, SK hynix v. BiTMICRO (Inv. 337-TA-1097), Sonrai Memory v. Micron, Arbor Global Strategies v. Samsung, and ITC Investigation 337-TA-1336 concerning semiconductor and mobile devices — useful corroboration of his ITC and memory-technology caseload, though those records establish him as counsel contact rather than first-chair. I did not find verified verdicts or settlements attributable to him individually; the tracked case list itself contains only an untitled defendant-side entry, so no additional case names can be confirmed from that source.

PTAB / IPR experience. Fish & Richardson states that he regularly appears before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the expert-declaration exhibits above consistently identify him as the firm contact on IPR petition preparation in memory and semiconductor matters (including petitions involving Apple, ROHM, Texas Instruments, Vervain/Micron, and Sonrai/Micron). This indicates regular PTAB involvement, but the public record does not show him as lead counsel of record on a large, independently verifiable IPR docket.

Bar and education. Admitted to the Texas bar in 2012 (Bar No. 24083565); registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 66460). J.D., Texas Tech University School of Law (2012); B.S. in microelectronic engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology (2006) (State Bar of Texas listing; Fish & Richardson). Federal court admissions reported include the Eastern and Southern Districts of Texas; the reported list may be incomplete.

Caveat: the authoritative case list supplied contains a single untitled entry, so the side-preference and case-volume observations above rest primarily on firm statements, press coverage, and court/PTAB dockets rather than on a complete litigation history.