Craig E. Countryman

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Craig E. Countryman — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. Countryman is a patent litigator in Fish & Richardson's San Diego / Southern California office whose practice is described by the firm as spanning "all areas of technology," including chemistry, pharmaceuticals, life sciences, medical devices, and electrical/computer technology. His technical background is as a chemist (B.S. in chemistry with honors, Caltech), and his practice has long centered on complex legal analysis and case-dispositive briefing — summary judgment, JMOL, and Federal Circuit and Supreme Court briefs. The three tracked matters reflect a recent consumer-electronics and standards bent: Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) standard-essential patents in Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology v. HP Inc. (E.D. Tex.), wearable/fitness-monitoring patents in Blackbird Tech LLC v. Fitbit, Inc., and web/e-commerce functionality in Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Google LLC. Public docket records also place him in pharma/life-sciences and electronics matters (e.g., Allergan, Illumina v. Oxford Nanopore, ATEN).

Side preference. The tracked list is entirely defense-side (0 plaintiff, 3 defendant), and the most recent tracked case has him defending HP against Wi-Fi 6 SEP assertions. That said, his broader public record is genuinely mixed: he has represented patentees and plaintiffs as well, most prominently Halo Electronics in its Supreme Court appeal, plus Allergan, Illumina, ATEN, and appellants Carl Zeiss AG and ASML Netherlands B.V. at the Federal Circuit. Characterize him as a defense-leaning litigator who works both sides, particularly in appellate and case-dispositive roles.

Firm context. He has been at Fish & Richardson for his entire shown career, joining as a summer associate and being elevated to principal in January 2014 as part of the firm's IP Litigation Group in Southern California; he has also co-chaired Fish's appellate practice. No prior law-firm employer was identified in the sources reviewed (his only pre-law-school legal role shown is a 2005 externship with the Major Crimes Division of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office). No indication was found that he has left Fish; a current firm bio page was not located in this search, so his present status should be confirmed.

Notable matters, PTAB, and credentials. The standout result is Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016), where the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Seagate two-part test and loosened the standard for enhanced damages under § 284; Fish lists Countryman among the attorneys who handled the appeals and elsewhere describes him as lead counsel on the case, which won Managing IP's 2017 "Case of the Year" award. He also argued Federal Circuit appeals (e.g., the Warsaw Orthopedic/NuVasive IPR appeals around 2015). On PTAB/IPR: the sources show appellate-side PTAB work (presentations on "Top 10 Issues from the PTAB Currently on Appeal" and the first wave of PTAB appeals), but no verified record of him as first-instance IPR petitioner counsel — his IPR exposure appears to be primarily on appeal rather than at the Board. Bar/education: admitted in California (Bar No. 244601); J.D., UCLA School of Law (2006); B.S., chemistry, Caltech (2003). He was named an Appellate Law360 "Rising Star" in 2016 and is listed in IAM Patent 1000.

Caveat: details of current firm status, any unlisted verdicts/settlements, and the precise scope of his PTAB practice are not fully verifiable from the sources reviewed and should be confirmed with the attorney or firm bio before reliance.