Henry N. Metro

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Henry N. Metro — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. Metro's practice centers on patent litigation in federal court, with exposure to software, semiconductor, and medical device technologies. His technical background is in computer science and mathematics, and he spent roughly five years as a software engineer working on applied machine learning before law school — experience that aligns with software and electronics-side disputes. His firm's practice descriptions emphasize patent assertions and IP disputes generally rather than a single technology niche; the tracked case record is too thin (two appearances, both untitled in the source data) to establish a specialty pattern on its own.

Side preference. Both tracked appearances are plaintiff-side, and one is identified with Fabricant (the firm now styled Fabricant Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP, or FRL). That is consistent with the firm's stated model: it represents patent owners and other patent holders against large operating companies, litigating in district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB, frequently on litigation-financed or contingency arrangements. On the available record, he is a patent-holder/plaintiff-side litigator rather than an operating-company defense lawyer. The two-appearance sample is small, so this should be treated as directional.

Firm context. Metro is currently with Fabricant Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP (rebranded from Fabricant LLP in March 2026, per Law360), a Manhattan-founded patent litigation boutique that has grown to roughly 19 attorneys with offices in Rye, N.Y.; Short Hills, N.J.; Washington, D.C.; and Irvine, Cal. Before joining FRL, he was an associate at Baker Botts LLP in the San Francisco office, where his practice covered inter partes reviews, patent litigation, patent prosecution, and trademark/copyright litigation.

Notable matters. The most identifiable tracked matter is WeCrevention Inc. v. Dell Inc. et al., No. 1:26-cv-01958 (W.D. Tex.), a plaintiff-side case on which Metro appears as counsel of record for FRL. I could not verify any individual verdict, Federal Circuit appeal, or settlement attributable to Metro personally; firm-level results (for example, FRL's G+ Communications v. Samsung standard-essential 5G matter, which produced a jury infringement award later invalidated at the PTAB) should not be credited to him without counsel-of-record confirmation.

PTAB / IPR experience. His Baker Botts practice description expressly included inter partes reviews, and his current firm is a heavy PTAB filer. However, I found no IPR or PGR proceedings in which Metro is personally identified as counsel, so regular personal PTAB appearance is not established.

Bar / education. Admitted to the State Bar of California; J.D., University of California, Berkeley School of Law (2023); B.S. in Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Washington (2015). He also co-authored "The Myth of 'Bad' Patents: Impact of Prosecution Length on Patent Litigation Outcomes," 38 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 227 (2024), with Arya Moshiri and Matthew Avery.

Caveat: the authoritative case list supplied contains no case names, and only two tracked appearances; the case and practice details above rest on the attorney's firm bios, a public docket entry, and the Law360 firm-profile reporting cited. Any detail not independently verifiable has been flagged as such.