Felipe Corredor

Felipe Corredor is a highly experienced patent litigator with a strong background in complex intellectual property disputes, particularly within the technology sector. His practice focuses on defending major operating companies against patent infringement allegations and trade secret claims. He holds a Bachelor of Applied Science in Engineering Science from the University of Toronto and a Master of Science in Applied Physics from Stanford University, complementing his legal expertise with a deep technical foundation. He earned his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School and clerked for the Honorable Richard R. Clifton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Corredor has primarily represented defendants, working to protect companies from infringement claims. His tracked appearances reflect this, with two cases on the defendant side, both for Google LLC. While he previously practiced as Counsel at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, where these cases originated, he is now Of Counsel at Conrad Metlitzky Kane LLP.

Throughout his career, Mr. Corredor has been involved in significant patent litigation matters. Notably, he was on the trial team that secured a complete defense jury verdict for Google in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas. In Personal Audio LLC v. Google LLC, a case involving patents related to audio software and digital audio sequencing, a jury initially awarded the plaintiff $15.1 million. However, a subsequent ruling granted Google "judgment as a matter of law" of no direct infringement, effectively overturning the verdict in Google's favor. He was also involved in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Google LLC, a Federal Circuit appeal concerning a signal processing patent that was voluntarily dismissed by both parties in January 2024. His practice also extends to broader intellectual property and commercial litigation, including being part of the trial team in the high-profile trade secret dispute Waymo v. Uber.

While the public record on his direct PTAB appearances is not explicit, his involvement in Federal Circuit appeals challenging patentability determinations (such as the Personalized Media Communications case which stemmed from a post-grant review) and defense of clients in cases where patents were subject to inter partes reviews indicates experience with the strategic implications and appellate outcomes of PTAB proceedings. He is admitted to practice in California, the Ninth Circuit, Tenth Circuit, Federal Circuit, and several federal district courts, including the Eastern District of Texas.