Brian Patrick Shaw Jr.

I'll research this attorney's background before drafting the summary.

Let me look into the tracked case and any patent-specific work.

Let me check for PTAB/IPR activity and prior firm history.

Brian Patrick Shaw Jr. — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. Shaw is not a patent specialist; he is a Dallas commercial trial lawyer whose patent exposure appears incidental to a broader business-litigation practice. His firm bio and bar listings describe work in partnership and shareholder disputes, fiduciary duty, contracts, energy, employment, construction, probate, and bankruptcy litigation and appeals, with no patent or IP practice area listed. His single tracked patent matter, Context Directions LLC v. Gulliver USA, Inc., involved consumer-electronics/automotive connectivity technology — specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564 and 10,142,791, directed to context detection in mobile devices via hierarchical sensor groups.

Side preference. On the tracked data he is 0–1: exclusively defense-side, and lead counsel in that one case. He defended Gulliver USA, an automotive dealer/distributor, against a patent assertion entity. This fits his stated self-description as a lawyer who represents "both plaintiffs and defendants in complex commercial litigation" — but the tracked patent record is a single defendant-side appearance, so any broader pattern is not established. Note that outside patent litigation he does represent plaintiffs as well (his firm bio emphasizes maximizing recoveries for plaintiff clients), so the defense-side tilt is specific to the one patent case, not a general NPE-defense practice.

Firm context. Shaw is a partner at Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal LLP (Dallas), where he joined in October 2021, arriving from Rogge Dunn Group, P.C. He has been with Carrington Coleman for the duration of his tracked patent case. The firm's IP litigation bench was strengthened at the same time by the arrival of IP litigator Dr. Chad Ray, but Shaw is not described as part of that IP group. He also serves as lead counsel in state and federal appellate matters.

Notable matters / outcomes. Context Directions LLC v. Gulliver USA, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01005 (E.D. Tex., Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap) is the only tracked patent case. Context Directions is a patent assertion entity that filed a broad campaign against auto dealerships over the two mobile-context patents; the complaint accused dozens of Nissan, Toyota, and Lexus models. The case was filed October 3, 2025, and closed February 20, 2026 — roughly 140 days later — via a joint motion under Rule 41(a)(2), with all claims dismissed with prejudice and each side bearing its own costs and fees. No substantive rulings, damages figure, or settlement terms were disclosed. Source: PatSnap litigation summary (AI-generated secondary reporting of docket activity) and PACER docket records for the Context Directions campaign; I could not verify the disposition against a primary court document in the sources retrieved. His more substantial trial record — an ~$8 million arbitration award confirmed to judgment against Highland Capital Management's structured-credit arm, an involuntary bankruptcy of Acis Capital Management, and appellate wins such as PrimaLend Capital Partners, LP v. Benit (Tex. App.—Dallas 2025) — is commercial, not patent, litigation.

PTAB / IPR experience. No evidence of any. Searches for Shaw in PTAB/IPR proceedings returned only unrelated matters (e.g., Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc., a Federal Circuit estoppel case involving a different party). Notably, no IPR or PGR petitions appear to have been filed alongside the Context Directions case.

Bar and education. Admitted to practice in Texas (2006), State Bar No. 24053473; J.D., Baylor University School of Law, 2006. Named a Texas Bar Foundation Fellow and recognized in The Best Lawyers in America (Commercial Litigation) and Texas Super Lawyers.

Caveat. With one tracked appearance, this record should be read as evidence of a general commercial litigator who has handled a single NPE defense on the defense side, not of a dedicated patent practice. Any characterization of a broader patent or IPR practice would not be supported by the available sources.