Craig L. Uhrich

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me dig deeper into the disambiguation and the specific cases.

Craig L. Uhrich — patent litigation practice summary

Focus areas. Uhrich's docket skews toward electronics, communications and software: he has appeared for parties litigating wireless/telecommunications patents (Wireless Handover OY v. AT&T, N.D. Tex. 2013), memory architecture and touch-feedback patents against ZTE (Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture v. ZTE, E.D. Tex.; Tactile Feedback Technology v. ZTE), and location-based/mobile "mediated experience" patents (Mediated Ambiance LLC). Aggregator profiles categorize his matters as communications, computer architecture and software, with additional biotech/chemical and mechanical-manufacturing entries; his most recent active case, Wound Healing Technologies Corp. v. Solventum Corp. (W.D. Tex.), concerns negative-pressure wound-therapy dressings — a medical-device/mechanical rather than electronics subject matter. He also appears on patent prosecution filings (USPTO Reg. No. 63042), with applicant activity in diagnostics, consumer products and software, so his practice spans prosecution and litigation rather than litigation alone.

Side preference. The tracked case list shows a single appearance — plaintiff side, as counsel — and that is representative of his visible assertion-side work. The broader web record is mixed: he has represented patent owners and small assertion plaintiffs (Wound Healing Technologies, Mediated Ambiance, Wireless Handover, Parthenon), but also defended operating companies such as ZTE (USA)/ZTE (TX). PTAB-focused aggregator data on his proceedings is split roughly 61% challenger / 39% patent owner and tags about 39% of his matters as NPE-related, but that aggregator's party attributions are unreliable and should not be treated as authoritative. On balance the public record reads as a plaintiffs'/patent-owner-leaning practice with meaningful defense-side work, not a dedicated defense shop.

Firm context. Law360 and USPTO petition filings place him at Bochner PLLC (New York), the firm of record in his most recent matters; he is also listed on a merits-stage U.S. Supreme Court reply brief (No. 23-504, 2023) filed by Bochner PLLC. Before that he was of counsel at Upshaw PLLC (Dallas/Richardson, Texas), where he litigated alongside Everett Upshaw and Erik Dykema, and has been associated with Uhrich Law Firm, P.A. (Oakley, Kansas). Earlier career postings reported in firm bio aggregators include Vinson & Elkins (documented 2010 pro bono work), Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, and a five-year stint in Jones Day's trial practice group. Caution: the USPTO OED entry still lists Upshaw PLLC as his firm, so the current-firm designation rests on the more recent Bochner filings and Law360 profile rather than on OED data. Note also that at least one Kansas general-practice attorney with a nearly identical name appears in unrelated state matters; Martindale's consolidated record lists Texas, New York and Kansas admissions for a single Craig Lee Uhrich, and the Federal Circuit appearance below identifies him with the Kansas office, so the dual-state practice appears to be one person, but some third-party aggregators likely conflate the two.

Notable matters, PTAB experience, and credentials. His most prominent tracked matter is Wound Healing Technologies Corp. v. Solventum Corporation (No. 6:24-cv-00589, W.D. Tex., filed Nov. 15, 2024), in which Solventum and 3M were served and the district court stayed the case (Dkt. 30) pending an IPR on U.S. Patent 10,639,404; the Board instituted Solventum's IPR2025-01042, but the petitioning side was represented by Akin Gump, not Uhrich, and no final outcome is public. He argued Personal Beasties Group LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 2019-1235 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2020), which was affirmed in a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment — a loss for his client. He does appear in PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings, but the publicly available record is not sufficient to describe him as a regular first-chair IPR practitioner. Per Martindale, he is admitted in Texas (2001), New York (2002) and Kansas (2002), the Fifth, Tenth and Federal Circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court, and is registered before the USPTO (Reg. No. 63042); he holds a B.S. in nuclear engineering from Kansas State University (1992), an M.B.A. from the University of Houston (1999), a J.D. from the University of Houston (2000) and an LL.M. in international legal studies from NYU (2001).