Eric Barmon Fastiff

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me verify the specific patent case appearance and any IPR/PTAB activity.

Let me check the appellate outcome and whether Fastiff appears in PTAB proceedings.

Eric Barmon Fastiff — Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP (San Francisco)

Specialty / focus areas. Fastiff's tracked patent-side work is narrow and specific: his single appearance in this dataset is for plaintiff Intellectual Ventures II LLC in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-01106 (N.D. Ala., filed June 12, 2013), part of IV's 2013 campaign against dozens of banks. The patents asserted across that campaign (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,745,574; 6,715,084; 6,826,694; 6,314,409; 7,634,666) concern encryption, secure communications, cryptographic key/certificate handling, and online-banking data security—i.e., financial-services software and data-security technology, not Wi-Fi standards, pharma chemistry, or mechanical arts. His firm bio and prior practice descriptions list "Antitrust & Intellectual Property" and note that he represents owners of intellectual property in patent and copyright infringement matters; he chaired Lieff Cabraser's Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and Commercial Litigation group. His broader docket is antitrust class actions, mass torts, and (since 2018) Native American tribal litigation.

Side preference. Entirely plaintiff-side in the tracked data (1 plaintiff / 0 defendant), consistent with his firm, which represents only plaintiffs. This is not operating-company defense work, and the one patent case was a patent-assertion action brought on behalf of Intellectual Ventures, a patent-holder/NPE—not a defense of a practicing company. His other IP-adjacent experience is likewise plaintiff or IP-owner side, including a two-week arbitration on combined IP and breach-of-contract claims (reported as Copytele against AU Optronics) and a state-court patent and breach-of-contract matter involving a drug-delivery patch. He is not a registered patent attorney as far as the public record shows, and there is no evidence of patent prosecution work.

Notable cases / outcomes. His patent docket is thin. In the tracked IV II v. BBVA Compass matter, the bank defendants won: Compass Bank obtained a stay pending inter partes review and ultimately a dismissal with prejudice of all of IV's claims (per Jones Day's experience description). More broadly, IV's banking campaign collapsed—the asserted claims were invalidated or held unpatentable in IPRs and parallel district court litigation, and the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB holdings of unpatentability and, in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 17-2429 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2018), affirmed under Rule 36. In the related Commerce Bancshares matter, the district court denied § 285 fees but awarded costs. Fastiff's name appears in the Federal Circuit appendix in that litigation, and his pro hac vice appearance in the Alabama case was terminated October 5, 2017. His well-documented, verifiable results are non-patent: co-lead counsel in the California Cipro antitrust litigation ($399M in settlements), LCD/TFT panel price-fixing litigation ($470M+), and the De Beers monopolization case ($295M settlement).

PTAB / IPR experience. No IPR or PGR appearances by Fastiff are documented. In the IV proceedings, the patent owner's PTAB counsel was Knobbe Martens (e.g., IPR2014-00682, IPR2014-00724), and the petitions were filed by the bank defendants' outside counsel. His IPR exposure appears indirect—through district court cases that were stayed pending IPR—rather than as counsel of record before the Board.

Bar / education. California (1996), D.C. (1997), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2007); Cornell Law School J.D. 1995 (Editor-in-Chief, Cornell International Law Journal), London School of Economics M.Sc. 1991, Tufts University B.A. 1990.

Caveat: The public record on Fastiff's patent-specific practice is limited to this one case plus firm self-descriptions; the breadth of his patent experience cannot be reliably characterized beyond that.