Clarke W. Stavinoha

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Good detail. Let me verify the tracked case and IPR outcomes.

One more round to confirm outcomes and the Portus case status.

Clarke W. Stavinoha — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus areas. Stavinoha's practice centers on PTAB trials and complex patent litigation, with prosecution work layered on top. Baker Botts' own bio describes drafting and prosecuting applications in telecommunications, financial services, energy, software, electronic hardware, and the mechanical arts, and his PTAB docket reflects that spread: HVAC/thermostat controls (Lennox/Rosen), network packet inspection and routing (Arista Networks IPRs on U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,830,821 and 10,652,111), telecom presence/trunking (Motorola Solutions IPRs on the '664 and '830 patents), glucose monitoring (an Abbott/DexCom IPR), and dating-app technology (as patent-owner counsel for Match Group). He also holds an M.S. in biotechnology, though the available docket record does not show him litigating life-sciences patents. He has a documented emphasis on § 101 eligibility motions practice, on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants.

Side preference. The one tracked district court appearance is defense-side — for Lennox International in Portus Singapore Pte Ltd et al. v. Lennox International Inc. (N.D. Tex., No. 3:26-cv-01328, filed Apr. 24, 2026) — and the tracking data (0 plaintiff / 1 defendant, designated likely supporting counsel) is too thin to establish a pattern on its own. His firm bio and PTAB record fill that gap: he describes a practice spanning competitor cases and defense against non-practicing entities, and he appears overwhelmingly as petitioner/challenger in IPRs for operating companies (Lennox, Motorola, Arista), which is functionally defense-aligned, while also representing patent owners at the Board (e.g., Match Group). He is not, on the available record, an NPE-side filer.

Firm context. He is a partner in Baker Botts L.L.P.'s Dallas office and registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 71,152). Every court and PTAB filing located for him is under the Baker Botts name; no prior firm history surfaced in the searchable record.

PTAB / IPR experience — substantial and recent. He has appeared as counsel in numerous IPRs, and this is the strongest-supported part of his profile:

• Lennox Industries v. Rosen Technologies, IPR2023-00715 through -00719 — five petitions (thermostat patents 6,619,555; 6,789,739; 7,156,318; 7,185,825; 7,232,075) against the same NPE asserting them in Rosen Technologies LLC v. Lennox Industries, No. 3:22-cv-00732 (N.D. Tex.). All five were instituted (Nov. 14, 2023) and then terminated in March 2024 following settlement, with the parallel litigation resolved through a stipulated consent judgment dismissing the '318 and '075 patent claims with prejudice. Note that the '318 patent was separately held unpatentable in a Feb. 28, 2024 final written decision in Unified Patents' own IPR — not a Lennox/Stavinoha result, but relevant context for the outcome.
• Motorola Solutions v. STA Group, IPR2023-01292, -01294, -01295 (petitioner side; oral argument took place in January 2025).
• Arista Networks IPRs IPR2024-01238/-01239 (petitions filed Aug. 2024; co-pending district court actions stayed).
• Patent-owner-side representation for Match Group in IPR2019-01000, and appearances in an Abbott Diabetes Care/DexCom IPR.

Notable litigation. Beyond Portus and Rosen, he was on the Baker Botts team representing Zscaler in Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-04414 (N.D. Cal.), including the parallel Zscaler IPR of the '429 patent and the associated assignor-estoppel proceedings — the case in which Symantec's assignor-estoppel theory was pressed against Zscaler.

Caveats. The Portus v. Lennox case is recent: the docket shows Lennox (through Baker Botts partner David G. Wille) appearing and answering an amended complaint, and a Law360 docket listing shows a notice of dismissal filed by Portus; I could not verify the terms or final disposition, and Stavinoha's name does not appear as counsel of record on the docket entries reviewed, consistent with the "supporting counsel" designation. Portus itself has publicly identified as a non-practicing entity, and its complaints in related cases have drawn marking-statute and damages-window challenges.

Bar / education. State Bar of Texas; registered patent attorney (USPTO); admitted to the Federal Circuit and the Eastern District of Texas. J.D., SMU Dedman School of Law (2014), summa cum laude and salutatorian; M.S., Biotechnology, UT Dallas (2011); B.A., University of Texas (2007). He was a law-school judicial intern to Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn (N.D. Tex.), and is listed as a Legal 500 "Next Generation Partner" in Patents: Prosecution (2026).