Ethan Lawrence Plail

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Ethan Lawrence Plail — patent litigation practice summary

Focus areas. Plail is a patent litigator whose practice spans both life sciences and high technology. His White & Case biography describes work for clients in oil refining, biotech, medical devices, artificial intelligence, software and hardware, cellular and wireless devices and networks, semiconductors, and consumer products, and notes a chemical engineering background (BS, University of Florida, 2015) alongside ITC Section 337, PTAB post-grant/IPR, and district court litigation experience. The verifiable matters in the public record skew toward consumer technology and web/e-commerce patents (connected fitness equipment; TikTok/ByteDance web-page and hyperlinking patents) rather than pharma or standards-essential Wi-Fi work. The tracked case list is small (2 appearances), so technology-area generalizations should be treated as practice-description-based rather than docket-derived.

Side preference. The tracked appearances are both defense-side: 0 appearances for plaintiffs and 2 for defendants, including his appearance for ByteDance/TikTok in DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC v. ByteDance Ltd. et al. (W.D. Tex., then E.D. Tex., transferred to N.D. Cal.). His broader experience is not purely defensive, however: his firm biography claims representation of both defendant and plaintiff in a multi-forum connected-fitness campaign, and as a complainant in a 14-respondent ITC investigation, and a declaration he filed with the PTAB in the Peloton v. Mad Dogg IPRs states he joined Peloton's side of that dispute (Latham & Watkins at the time). Net: predominantly an operating-company defense practice, with some complainant/patent-owner-side ITC and PTAB work.

Firm context. He is currently at White & Case in Washington, D.C. (listed as counsel in the tracked case; the firm bio still describes him as an associate, which may simply lag a promotion). His verifiable prior firm is Latham & Watkins, where he was a member of the intellectual property group and served as back-up PTAB counsel for Peloton. The tracked case list also shows a Weil, Gotshal & Manges appearance as an associate in an untitled matter; I could not corroborate any Weil tenure in public sources, so that entry should be verified internally before being described as a prior firm.

Notable matters, PTAB/IPR, and credentials. In the DiStefano dispute he appeared for ByteDance Ltd., ByteDance Pte. Ltd., TikTok Ltd., and Heliophilia Pte. Ltd.; the parallel W.D. Tex. action ended in a self-effectuating Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal without prejudice (Oct. 29, 2024), and the E.D. Tex. action was transferred to N.D. Cal., where he submitted declarations supporting the defendants' motion to dismiss. He has genuine and recurring PTAB involvement, generally as back-up rather than lead counsel: pro hac vice admission as back-up counsel in Peloton Interactive v. Mad Dogg Athletics, IPR2022-00016 and -00017, and appearances on petitioner teams in Minka Lighting v. Wangs Alliance, IPR2024-01027 (terminated on settlement) and TikTok's IPR2025-01224 against the DiStefano reissue patent. He also worked on the Lawyers for Civil Justice amicus brief in EcoFactor v. Google (Fed. Cir. No. 23-1101), the Rule 702 en banc rehearing. Bar admissions: New York (No. 5719299) and District of Columbia (No. 1686513); JD, Georgetown University Law Center, 2018.

Sourcing note: the firm biography, his PTAB pro hac vice declaration, and PACER/PTAB filings are the primary sources here; no verdicts, settlements, or Federal Circuit outcomes attributable to him personally were verifiable beyond the procedural dispositions described above.