James P. Murphy

I'll research this attorney carefully, since "James P. Murphy" is a common name requiring disambiguation.

Important disambiguation issue surfacing — let me verify identity and dig into specifics.

Professional summary — James P. Murphy (Polsinelli PC, Houston)

Specialty / focus. Mr. Murphy is a registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 55,474) whose practice is unusually PTAB-centric, combining district court patent litigation with a heavy post-grant docket. Firm and directory bios describe an electrical-engineering background and technical work spanning semiconductors, communications/network communications, computer architecture and software, mechanical/manufacturing, transportation and e-commerce, medical devices, clean energy and automation. Third-party PTAB analytics (Ex Parte) classify his case history largely in mechanical/manufacturing, transportation/e-commerce, communications, semiconductor/optics, and computer architecture/software. His tracked matters also include a substantial pharmaceutical/ANDA component (the Padagis–Neurelis diazepam nasal spray dispute) and patent prosecution work for clients such as L'Oréal and Symrise, which reflects a mixed litigation-and-prosecution profile rather than a single-technology niche.

Side preference. The tracked appearances (5 plaintiff-side, 2 defendant-side) overstate any plaintiff orientation: several "plaintiff" entries are Padagis matters in which the generic manufacturer filed declaratory-judgment counterclaims in response to Neurelis's infringement suits. In PTAB practice the split is genuinely bilateral — he has been lead counsel for petitioners (e.g., Flotek, Advanced Energy v. Reno Sub-Systems, Mallinckrodt, and the Padagis IPRs) and for patent owners (e.g., Samsung v. Power2B, IPR2021-01190). In district court he has represented operating companies as defendants/appellees (Apple in SoftView, Padagis in the Delaware ANDA cases). He should be characterized as a both-sides litigator serving predominantly operating companies, with occasional patent-owner and generics representation — not an NPE/PAE specialist.

Firm context. He is a Shareholder in Polsinelli's Houston office and is identified by Chambers USA as a key contact of the firm's IP practice. Before Polsinelli he was a partner at Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg, and PTAB analytics list an earlier affiliation with Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz; a 2014 Law360 report covered a group of roughly 44 former Novak Druce attorneys joining Polsinelli.

Notable matters, PTAB experience and credentials. He appears on the Federal Circuit briefing in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2023-1005/-1007 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024), where the court upheld 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3) but held the estoppel rule does not reach previously issued claims — a mixed appellate outcome for his client Apple. His largest tracked engagement is the Padagis US LLC v. Neurelis, Inc. matter: consolidated Delaware ANDA litigation over VALTOCO® (diazepam nasal spray) patents and three related Padagis IPRs (IPR2025-00464/-00465/-00466), all instituted, with a bench trial scheduled in 2027. He is also listed as counsel for petitioner in Candela Corporation v. Nikolai Tankovich (details not independently verified here). His IPR/PGR practice is extensive: the National Law Review bio states he has been named lead counsel in over one hundred post-grant proceedings on both petitioner and patent-owner sides, and Patexia's 2018 IPR Intelligence Report ranked him No. 29 among its Top 50 best-performing IPR attorneys and No. 34 for petitioner-side representation. Bar and education: Martindale reports a J.D. from South Texas College of Law (2006), admission in Texas (2006) and California (2009); firm bios additionally reference business and electrical-engineering degrees, though those specifics are not fully sourced.

Disambiguation note. A separate "James P. Murphy" appears in Best Lawyers as a Chicago IP litigator (DePaul J.D. 1992, Phillips Screw Company work); those credentials and client testimonials should not be attributed to this attorney. One tracked appearance ("Untitled case — plaintiff — lead counsel") could not be identified from available sources and is not characterized here.