Brittany B. Amadi

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

Brittany B. Amadi is a partner in WilmerHale's Washington, DC office, practicing intellectual property litigation at the trial and appellate levels.[1] Her practice spans a broad technology range — the firm bio cites computer software, semiconductors, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, financial services and defense — and she has trial experience in federal courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, California, Texas and Massachusetts, plus dozens of Federal Circuit appeals.[1][2] Her tracked patent matters fit that profile: Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation (W.D. Tex.), an NPE suit asserting proximity-/access-authentication patents against Intel connectivity products, where she is lead counsel; and DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. (C.D. Cal.), a video-streaming and encryption patent case where she was trial counsel.[1][3]

Side preference. On the tracked docket she is exclusively defense-side (0 plaintiff, 2 defendant), and the pattern holds in searchable matters — Intel (AVM Technologies, VLSI), Netflix, Apple (Masimo, Cobblestone Wireless), Samsung (Vasu Holdings) and T-Mobile. That said, her firm bio also reflects patentee-side representations (e.g., Amdocs in the Federal Circuit § 101 appeal, Biogen in an interference, and Hatch-Waxman/ANDA matters for Astellas), so she is best described as defense-leaning but experienced on both sides rather than a dedicated NPE/PAE advocate.[1][4]

Notable matters. Her most-cited result is AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., where a Delaware jury found no infringement of all eight asserted claims in a $2 billion suit (2017); she is also credited in the AVM matter in a Law360 Rising Star profile.[5] She was part of the WilmerHale team on the VirnetX–Apple dispute, in which the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB invalidation (vacating a $500M+ judgment).[6] In DivX v. Netflix, the jury returned a complete defense verdict for Netflix on all asserted claims in March 2026 after DivX sought more than $400 million; Netflix had also won summary judgment of § 101 invalidity on two patents, and the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB on a third (Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC).[3] Other reported matters include Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom (Fed. Cir. reversal of a § 101 invalidity holding for the patentee), Profectus Technology LLC v. Huawei (affirmance of non-infringement summary judgment) and Biogen MA v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research (interference priority).[1] She also appeared for Apple in Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc.[7] I could not verify an outcome for Proxense v. Intel from the sources reviewed, so no result should be assumed there.

PTAB/IPR. WilmerHale's bio states she has experience in post-grant review proceedings before the PTAB, and the DivX v. Netflix matter was stayed for years pending Netflix's IPRs, with the Federal Circuit appeal arising directly from a Board decision — but the public record I reviewed does not show her as a frequent named IPR petitioner's counsel, so heavy PTAB-first-chair experience should not be assumed.[1][3]

Bar/education. Admitted in the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; JD, Harvard Law School (2010); BS in mechanical engineering, University of Maryland. Before law school she worked as a mechanical engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory, and she clerked for Judge Timothy B. Dyk (Fed. Cir.) and Judge Raymond A. Jackson (E.D. Va.).[1][2]

One caveat: WilmerHale and "Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr" in the tracked data are the same firm, so the two appearances do not indicate a firm change.

[1] WilmerHale attorney bio (Brittany Amadi); [2] Legal 500 profile; [3] WilmerHale news release on Netflix verdict; C.D. Cal. final judgment, DivX v. Netflix, No. 19-cv-01602; [4] WilmerHale bio matter list; [5] Law360 Rising Star profile (2020); [6] Bloomberg Law "They've Got Next: 40 Under 40" profile (2023); [7] Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc. docket (C.D. Cal.).