Carl D. Neff

Carl D. Neff — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Carl D. Neff is a Delaware-based litigator whose patent work sits within a broader commercial, bankruptcy, and IP practice before the District of Delaware, the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the Delaware Supreme Court. His Pierson Ferdinand LLP bio lists intellectual property litigation among his core practices, and his verified patent matters skew to software: he appeared for defendant Egnyte, Inc. in Topia Technology v. Egnyte (D. Del.), a multi-patent dispute over automatic file-synchronization and cloud-storage systems, and for plaintiff ImagineAR in ImagineAR v. Niantic (D. Del.), which asserted patents covering location-based mobile gaming and augmented-reality features (e.g., Pokémon GO-style gameplay). A Law360 listing also associates him with the ANDA/patent case Array BioPharma v. Eugia Pharma Specialities (D. Del. 2022), giving him some Hatch-Waxman exposure.

On side preference, the tracked docket shows one appearance — plaintiff-side, as local counsel for ImagineAR through Ashby & Geddes. But his web-searchable patent record is genuinely two-sided: in Topia v. Egnyte he filed the appearance for, and was part of the team defending, the accused operating company. There is no evidence of a repeat-NPE or repeat-operating-company pattern from the available data.

Firm context. Neff is currently a partner at Pierson Ferdinand LLP (PierFerd), per the firm's August 2025 announcement of the Egnyte win. The authoritative case record places his 2024 ImagineAR appearance at Ashby & Geddes (Wilmington). He previously was a partner at FisherBroyles LLP and, before that, Fox Rothschild LLP's Wilmington office, and he clerked for Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey.

Notable cases and outcomes. His most prominent verified result is Topia Technology v. Egnyte (No. 21-1821-CJB): Judge Christopher J. Burke granted Egnyte summary judgment of non-infringement on the eve of a scheduled jury trial, ending a four-year, six-patent suit — a complete defense win announced by PierFerd. In the tracked ImagineAR v. Niantic case (No. 1:24-cv-01252), the district court granted Niantic judgment on the pleadings in April 2026, holding the four asserted patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101; plaintiffs stated an intent to appeal to the Federal Circuit. Separately, his published Delaware commercial work includes a Third Circuit writ of mandamus vacating a venue transfer and a forum non-conveniens dismissal of a $60 million suit.

PTAB/IPR and credentials. No public record indicates a regular PTAB/IPR or PGR practice; his patent work appears to be district-court-centric, largely in Delaware. Bar/education: admitted in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, and D.C.; J.D., William & Mary Law School (2005); B.A., Georgetown University (2002) — per his firm bio and Justia profile.