Catherine Martinez

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Catherine Martinez — Patent Litigation Summary

Focus areas. Martinez is a New York–based litigator at MoloLamken LLP whose tracked patent work is overwhelmingly appellate, concentrated in appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions. Her docket is technology-diverse rather than single-industry: inkjet printing hardware (printhead heater chips, thermal-region sensors, micro-fluid ejection substrates) in the Slingshot Printing/Canon matters; DRAM memory-module and memory-controller architecture in the Netlist/Samsung disputes; and transcatheter heart-valve delivery methods in the Colibri/Medtronic matter. Third-party case-classification data also tags her with semiconductor, optics, communications, and software/computer-architecture matters. Her firm bio frames her more broadly as a complex civil and appellate litigator spanning IP, bankruptcy, and white-collar defense, with a trademark and Lanham Act Supreme Court matter among her representative engagements — so the patent-heavy profile in the tracked list reflects the matters she has staffed, not the outer limit of her practice.

Side preference. The tracked counts (4 plaintiff / 7 defendant) understate a clear substantive alignment: on the merits she has worked the patent-owner side, representing the party asserting the patents. Slingshot Printing is described in trade coverage as a licensing entity, and Netlist is a patent owner and serial litigant; Canon and Samsung are the operating-company challengers. The plaintiff/defendant labels in the list are largely caption artifacts — several "defendant" entries are the Canon U.S.A. v. Slingshot Printing declaratory-judgment/IPR-related captions, and the corresponding Federal Circuit appeals are captioned Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., where Slingshot is the appellant. She does not appear to have a defense-side operating-company practice in these tracked matters.

Firm context and background. MoloLamken is her sole tracked firm (all 10 captioned entries), and she is the firm's counsel of record in the Federal Circuit briefs at issue. Before MoloLamken she worked as a litigation law clerk at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP and clerked for the Hon. Gerard E. Lynch (Second Circuit) and the Hon. Jeffrey A. Meyer (D. Conn.). No earlier patent-specific firm affiliation is documented in the sources reviewed. Bar: New York (admitted September 21, 2020; N.Y. Bar No. 580436). Education: Yale Law School, J.D.; University of Chicago, B.A. (per her firm biography).

Notable matters and outcomes. In the Slingshot Printing v. Canon line, she is listed among MoloLamken counsel on at least five Federal Circuit appeals (Nos. 24-1956, 24-2127, 24-2132, 25-1032, 25-1033) from IPRs in which Canon challenged Slingshot's inkjet printhead patents. All were resolved against her client — the court affirmed PTAB obviousness holdings invalidating the '341, '951, '864, '823, and '708 patents (nonprecedential dispositions issued April–July 2026, one via Rule 36). In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., she is counsel for Netlist in the appeal from IPR2023-00847; the Federal Circuit affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on December 9, 2025, leaving intact the Board's finding that Samsung failed to show claims of Netlist's U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608 unpatentable — a favorable outcome for her client. CourtListener's docket for Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2023-2153) lists her among MoloLamken's counsel for Colibri, the patent owner; that precedential July 18, 2025 decision reversed a jury verdict of roughly $106–125 million against Medtronic on prosecution-history-estoppel grounds — a loss for the Colibri side. (That appearance is not reflected in the tracked case list; it is drawn from the appellate docket, so treat it as verified-but-unconfirmed as to her specific role.)

PTAB / IPR experience. Every patent matter in the tracked list reaches the Federal Circuit via an IPR or PGR, and she appears as counsel on the resulting appeals — including the Slingshot IPR appeals and Samsung v. Netlist (arising from IPR2023-00847, with a related PGR2025-00071 involving the '087 patent). The record reviewed does not show her as lead PTAB trial counsel in the underlying proceedings themselves; her documented role is on the appellate side of IPR-originated cases.