Cody Carter

Cody Carter — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus areas. Carter practices intellectual property litigation and patent prosecution, with a technical foundation in mechanical engineering and materials science (Baylor University, B.S. 2018). His drafting work has spanned electric-vehicle charging, resistive braking, intraluminal medical devices, oil and gas equipment, construction control systems, and agricultural equipment. His two tracked litigations, however, involve semiconductor technology: both are enforcement actions brought by MOSAID Technologies Inc. — one against Infineon (1:25-cv-00436, W.D. Tex., filed Mar. 2025) over NOR/HYPERFLASH/SEMPER flash memory and TRAVEO microcontrollers, and one against Intel (3:26-cv-00246, D. Or. / related W.D. Tex. matter).

Side preference. Both tracked appearances are plaintiff-side (2 plaintiff, 0 defendant), and public dockets confirm him as counsel for MOSAID, a non-practicing entity per Stanford's NPE Litigation Database. His practice thus currently skews toward NPE/patent-holder enforcement against operating semiconductor companies, though his firm bio states he handles both enforcement and defense.

Firm context. Carter is an associate at Winstead PC in Dallas. He joined after an associate stint at Foley & Lardner LLP, where he focused on patent drafting before moving into litigation. His judicial background is notable for Texas patent work: law clerk to Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap (E.D. Tex.) and judicial intern to Judge Alan D. Albright (W.D. Tex.), where he worked on claim construction hearings and trial preparation. He is a Baylor Law graduate (J.D., summa cum laude, 2021) and is admitted in Texas.

Notable cases, PTAB, and outcomes. His most prominent tracked matters are the MOSAID v. Infineon and MOSAID v. Intel actions, both filed in 2025–2026 and still pending; no verdicts, settlements, or Federal Circuit appeals involving him were verified. The Infineon case has parallel IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01456, -01487, -01489) filed by Infineon against the asserted patents, but I could not verify that Carter personally appears before the PTAB; the PTACTS filings show his Winstead colleagues leading those matters. No reliable source confirms regular IPR/PGR practice.