Ashraf Fawzy

I'll research this attorney's professional background before drafting.

Professional Summary — Ashraf A. Fawzy

Focus areas. Fawzy's tracked docket spans consumer electronics, automotive, and standards-driven technologies: video coding (H.264/HEVC — several Unified Patents IPRs turn on H.264 references), wireless/network access and authentication, digital imaging and multi-lens camera patents, motion/gesture sensors, and standard-essential-patent subject matter (he was listed as "Legal Head – SEP" on Unified's site). His Tesla matters center on automotive software, camera/ADAS vision patents, and EV charging technology. There is no meaningful pharma or life-sciences presence in the record.

Side preference — both sides, but not in the classic NPE/PAE sense. The tracked list is even (6 plaintiff / 6 defendant), yet the plaintiff-side work is almost entirely defensive: Fawzy filed IPR and reexamination petitions as in-house counsel for Unified Patents, a member-funded entity whose stated purpose is deterring NPE litigation against technology sectors — not a patent owner asserting infringement. His defendant-side work is defending Tesla (an operating company) against NPE suits and against Intellectual Ventures. He has not, on this record, prosecuted infringement claims for a PAE.

Firm context. Fawzy is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 67,914). He spent roughly nine years as an IP litigator in the Washington, D.C. office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (2008–2017), then joined Unified Patents in 2017 as in-house counsel, rising to Senior Patent Counsel and co-head of Unified's legal department. He moved in-house to Tesla, Inc. as Managing Counsel, IP Litigation (PTAB powers of attorney and district court appearances dated 2024–2025). The structured data lists a single "Haynes and Boone" entry on the defense side; public records I reviewed consistently show Haynes and Boone as outside counsel on matters where Fawzy appeared in-house (e.g., Unified IPRs, Tesla v. Intellectual Ventures), so I could not verify an employment relationship with that firm — treat that entry as unconfirmed.

Notable cases and outcomes. At Unified, he was on the team in Unified Patents v. American Patents (IPR2019-00482), where all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,373,655 were held unpatentable and the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed (American Patents LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 21-1635, nonprecedential, Mar. 10, 2022). He was also in-house counsel in Unified Patents v. Kojicast (all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 9,749,380 unpatentable, Dec. 2020) and Unified Patents v. Gesture Technology Partners (majority of claims of U.S. Patent 7,933,431 unpatentable, Nov. 2022). At Tesla, his most prominent tracked matters are the multi-front Intellectual Ventures II v. Tesla dispute in Texas district court and the parallel PTAB campaign; reported PTAB decisions have been mixed (Tesla knocked out claims of some IV camera/imaging patents, e.g., five claims of U.S. Patent 7,916,180, while IV prevailed on others). Other tracked matters include Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla (W.D. Tex., No. 7:25-cv-00594), Charge Fusion Technologies v. Tesla, and defense of the IV '158 patent proceeding.

PTAB / IPR experience. This is his dominant venue. He appears regularly in IPR/PGR proceedings both as in-house lead or backup counsel at Unified Patents and as Tesla's Managing Counsel, IP Litigation, signing powers of attorney across numerous IPRs (e.g., IPR2024-00541, IPR2024-00545, IPR2024-00630, IPR2025-00220/00222, IPR2025-00339/00342). He has been a member of the PTAB Bar Association since 2016 and has served on its Industry Committee.

Bar / education. J.D., Temple University Beasley School of Law, 2008; admitted to practice in Washington, D.C. (2009) and registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 67,914). (Earlier "Rising Stars" listings for 2014–2017 are peer-rating recognitions, not case results.)

Sourcing note: the firm-history, bar, and education facts come from the PTAB Bar Association member spotlight and a Super Lawyers profile; case outcomes come from PTAB filings/decisions, Federal Circuit dockets, and Law360 reporting as quoted on Unified Patents' and Haynes Boone's sites. The single Haynes and Boone firm entry in the tracked data could not be independently corroborated.