Fred Kelly

I'll verify this attorney's background and the tracked case before drafting.

Let me verify the tracked case and prior firm history.

Fred A. Kelly, Jr. — patent litigation summary (prepared 2026-09-30; based on one tracked appearance plus public sources)

Specialty / focus. Kelly is characterized in firm and press materials as a first-chair trial lawyer whose practice centers on complex commercial and product-related disputes for life sciences companies — False Claims Act matters, state consumer protection act class actions, antitrust/reverse-payment cases, trade secret and restrictive covenant claims, Lanham Act and product advertising/promotion, and product liability/mass tort work. Patent infringement appears as one component of that broader litigation practice rather than as a standalone IP-specialty docket. His single tracked patent case is mechanical/textile rather than life sciences or software: Nike's suit asserting patents on knit footwear-upper manufacturing ("Flyknit") technology, a knit-to-shape vs. knit-to-cut claim-scope dispute. No Wi-Fi/standards-essential, pharmaceutical-patent (ANDA/Hatch-Waxman), or NPE-oriented patent litigation was identified for him.

Side preference. The tracked record shows 1 plaintiff-side appearance and 0 defendant-side. That appearance is as counsel of record for Nike, Inc. in Nike, Inc. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-12666-JEK (D. Mass.) — i.e., representing a large operating company as patent plaintiff. More generally, his publicly described practice is predominantly defense-side for life sciences companies (his Arnold & Porter bio lists defendants almost exclusively). He is not an NPE/PAE prosecution-side litigator. The single patent data point should not be read as evidence of a broad plaintiff-side patent practice.

Firm context. Kelly is a partner in the Boston office of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (200 Clarendon St.), which he joined in summer 2023 as part of the firm's Boston-office launch alongside Hemmie Chang and Joshua Barlow. He came to Arnold & Porter from Haug Partners, a technology/IP-focused firm, where he joined as a partner in the life sciences practice in April 2017; before Haug he was a partner at Nixon Peabody. His earlier pre-2017 firm history was not verified in the sources reviewed.

Notable case. In Nike v. New Balance (nine asserted Flyknit patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,266,749; 8,898,932; 9,060,562; 9,510,636; 9,730,484; 9,907,350; 9,918,511; 9,924,758; 11,707,105), Kelly entered his notice of appearance for Nike on November 6, 2023, and his supporting declaration (with pre-suit correspondence exhibits) was filed with Nike's opposition to New Balance's partial motion to dismiss. Judge Kobick denied New Balance's partial motion to dismiss as to the '350, '511, and '758 patents on August 13, 2024, declining to resolve the "flat knit edges" construction at the pleading stage. Judge Kobick subsequently granted New Balance's motion to stay pending IPR on June 6, 2025. Verdicts, settlements, or Federal Circuit appeals in which Kelly personally argued were not identified.

PTAB / IPR. No PTAB proceeding (IPR or PGR) was verified in which Kelly is named as counsel. That is notable because the Nike matter is surrounded by PTAB activity — nine IPR petitions against six of the asserted patents filed by New Balance, Skechers, and lululemon; the PTAB found claims 1–19 of the '484 patent unpatentable in lululemon's IPR (final written decision March 21, 2025). His involvement in those IPRs is unconfirmed; the stay ruling is the only IPR-related development in which his client's interests are directly documented.

Bar / education. J.D., University of Virginia School of Law (1984); A.B., Harvard University (1981); admitted in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Recognized in Best Lawyers for Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants and Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (Massachusetts).

Caveat: the public record for this attorney is dominated by life sciences and commercial coverage, and his patent-specific footprint (one district court case, no verified IPR appearances) is thin. Any inference that he maintains a broad patent litigation practice should be treated as unsupported.