Edward J. Davis

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me look for professional profiles.

Note on sourcing: Public biographical information for an "Edward J. Davis" of Davis Wright Tremaine is thin, and the name is shared by several attorneys (including a New York IP/copyright lawyer and an unrelated damages consultant). The case appearances below are taken from the tracked docket data; the professional-background details are flagged where I could not verify them to a firm bio, court opinion, or reputable legal-press source.

Specialty / focus. The two tracked matters are the same underlying dispute — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. et al. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc. and the related Altair Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. et al. — both patent infringement actions over magnetic auxiliary-eyeglass-frame technology (U.S. Patents 5,737,054; 6,012,811; and 6,092,896). That places his demonstrated patent practice in the mechanical/consumer-products and optics space rather than software, telecom standards, or life sciences. One directory listing describes him as a New York attorney in Davis Wright Tremaine's internet-and-media group, which is consistent with a broader IP/media practice but is not a firm-sourced practice description, so I would not treat it as confirmed.

Side preference. He is exclusively on the defense side in the tracked data: 2 defendant-side appearances, 0 plaintiff-side. In Aspex, he represented Altair Eyewear (the accused infringer and, through parent VSP, the operating company), not the patentee. There is no tracked evidence of NPE/PAE plaintiff-side work.

Firm context. Both tracked appearances are with Davis Wright Tremaine. I found no verified record of prior firms relevant to his patent litigation career; the "Davis"/"Davis Wright Tremaine" name overlap appears coincidental and should not be read as a connection.

Notable case and outcome. In Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. No. 02-cv-6195), serving as lead trial counsel for Altair, the defense secured summary judgment of non-infringement of all three asserted patents (485 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)), after an earlier claim construction finding that "frame" required a rim (386 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)) and an unsuccessful plaintiff bid to dismiss for lack of standing (361 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)). On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the construction of "frame" and the non-infringement judgment as to the '054 patent, while affirming non-infringement of the '811 and '896 patents and the standing ruling (288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). The case continued for years afterward, including a USPTO reexamination of the '054 patent in which the original claims were confirmed, and further proceedings after transfer to the District of Massachusetts (D. Mass., Judge Young). I could not verify a final damages figure or ultimate disposition, so I would not characterize the overall result further.

PTAB / IPR. No verified IPR, PGR, or CBM appearances. The only post-grant proceeding visible in this dispute is an ex parte reexamination of the '054 patent at the USPTO — a different track from PTAB trials — and I found no evidence he appears regularly before the PTAB.

Bar / education. Not reliably sourced. I could not locate a firm bio, court admission record, or law school detail I would be comfortable citing; one non-authoritative directory entry lists roughly four decades of practice in New York. Recommend confirming bar admission and education directly with the firm before use.