Brian C. Baran

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me verify the specific tracked cases and PTAB experience.

Brian C. Baran — patent litigation practice summary

Focus areas. Baran is an appellate and trial lawyer in the Washington, D.C. office of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF), where his practice centers on critical motions and appeals, including intellectual property matters. His tracked patent work skews toward software, cloud/data infrastructure, and video/content-delivery technology rather than pharma or mechanical arts: the Valtrus docket against SAP involves enterprise data-management and storage patents (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,889,244; 7,152,182; 7,313,575), while the VideoLabs/VL Collective matters with Netflix concern streaming and digital-content-fulfillment patents. Third-party analytics (Ex Parte) tags his case mix as software/security-heavy with smaller communications and semiconductor/optics components, though that source is not authoritative.

Side preference. The tracked data shows three plaintiff-side appearances against one defendant-side: Valtrus Innovations (a patent-licensing entity) as plaintiff, plus two additional plaintiff-side RJLF matters, versus a single defense-side role. Published Federal Circuit opinions confirm he appeared for patent owner/appellant VideoLabs in VideoLabs, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc. (No. 25-1131) and VL Collective IP, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. (No. 25-1132). His larger public portfolio likewise reflects patent-owner work — Kove IO against Amazon Web Services, Cirba/Densify against VMware, and Droplets against Yahoo!/Altaba — with defense work for operating companies (Broadcom, per his firm bio) appearing more occasionally. One tracked matter is listed without a caption and cannot be characterized.

Notable matters. In In re SAP America, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 25-118, Apr. 10, 2025), he was on the Valtrus respondent team that defeated SAP's mandamus petition seeking intra-district transfer out of the Marshall Division, preserving venue in E.D. Tex. The VideoLabs/VL Collective appeals were less favorable: the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's unpatentability findings, including a Rule 36 affirmance in No. 25-1131 (May 12, 2026). His firm bio credits him with key briefing before, during, and after trial in Kove IO v. Amazon Web Services, where the district court upheld a $525 million jury verdict plus $148 million in interest (a total award reported at $673 million) and where he helped manage Kove's Federal Circuit defense of the judgment; he was also a member of the RJLF trial team that obtained an $84 million willful-infringement verdict for Cirba against VMware in D. Del. (2023).

PTAB/IPR and credentials. His IPR exposure appears principally as Federal Circuit appellate counsel on appeals from Board decisions (VideoLabs, Cirba), and court records from the SAP v. Valtrus IPRs (IPR2025-00416/0418/0419/0420) list other RJLF attorneys as patent-owner counsel of record, so I did not find him named as first-chair IPR counsel. Per his firm bio, he clerked for Judge Gary Feinerman (N.D. Ill.) and Judge Patricia A. Millett (D.C. Circuit), holds a J.D. from Stanford Law School (2018, Nathan Abbott Scholar) and a B.A. from Rice University (2015), and is admitted in California (SBN 325939) and D.C. with appearances before the Ninth and Federal Circuits and the Northern and Eastern Districts of California.