Gabriel Bell

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me verify case outcomes and PTAB experience.

Gabriel K. Bell — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. Bell's practice is concentrated in patent appeals and dispositive-motion work, with particular emphasis on patent eligibility under § 101. His firm bio and Chambers/Legal 500 profiles describe sector experience spanning computer/software, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and biotech, automotive, financial services, and (per Chambers 2026) crypto. The tracked appearance—Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.—fits the financial-services/software side of that mix. Source materials describe him as head of Latham & Watkins' Intellectual Property Appellate Practice, and his publicly listed Federal Circuit work includes life sciences (Jazz/Avadel, CareDx/Natera, Abbott/Flexstent), medical device (Shockwave, InfoBionic), consumer tech (Duolingo, Peloton, Arista, Meta), and automotive (Ford). Nothing in the sources ties him specifically to Wi-Fi/standard-essential-patent work.

Side preference. On the tracked docket he appears exclusively for defendants (0 plaintiff-side, 2 defendant-side), consistent with a defense-oriented operating-company practice. His reported client roster—Amazon, Meta, Arista, Peloton, Duolingo, Ford, Abbott, J&J, Natera—is predominantly established technology and life sciences companies defending infringement suits, often against NPEs. That said, his Federal Circuit docket includes some appellant-side/patent-owner representation (e.g., Veritas Technologies in an appeal from IPR proceedings), so the "defense-only" characterization should be treated as a tracked-docket pattern rather than an absolute.

Firm context and notable matters. Bell has been at Latham & Watkins (Washington, D.C.) throughout the tracked period, following earlier roles as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, positions at the U.S. Department of Justice and NASA Langley Research Center, and clerkships on the D.C. and Fifth Circuits (per firm bio). The most prominent tracked case is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One, where he was on Capital One's appellate team (Fed. Cir. No. 18-1367); the Federal Circuit affirmed § 101 invalidity and denied en banc rehearing in December 2019. Other publicly noted results include Jazz Pharms. v. Avadel CNS, 136 F.4th 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2025) and Avadel CNS, 60 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2023)—both recognized as LMG Life Sciences Impact Cases of the Year—Eolas Techs. v. Amazon.com (patent invalidated; Supreme Court declined further review in October 2024), CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., 40 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022), and multiple Ford appeals arising from IPR decisions on Paice hybrid-vehicle patents. Note that the two tracked appearances substantially undercount his appellate docket; Federal Circuit appearances are often not captured as trial-level case entries.

PTAB/IPR. He regularly handles Federal Circuit appeals from PTAB inter partes review decisions and district court matters with parallel IPRs (e.g., the Duolingo/Modern Font Applications litigation and the Ford/Paice IPR appeals). The available sources do not establish him as a frequent first-chair PTAB practitioner, so IPR experience is best described as appellate and litigation-strategy adjacent rather than frontline Board practice.

Bar and education. Admitted in the District of Columbia; admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fifth, Ninth, D.C., and Federal Circuits (firm bio). JD, Harvard Law School (2004); BA in Computer Science, Yale University (1998).

Caveat: the second tracked case is listed without a caption or docket information, so no substantive description is possible for it.