James S. Miller

I'll research this attorney, being careful about the common name.

Let me refine my search — the name is common, so I need to pin down the right person.

Professional Summary — James S. Miller

Verification note up front: "James S. Miller" is a common name, and I was unable to locate a Fish & Richardson attorney profile, bar-admission record, or education entry that I could reliably tie to this individual. The summary below rests primarily on the authoritative tracked-appearance data; web-verifiable personal details (firm bio, admissions, education, individual PTAB filings) could not be confirmed, and I have flagged those gaps rather than fill them.

Specialty / focus. The only tracked subject matter is the Cisco Systems v. Intelligent Protection Management Corp. litigation, which centers on enterprise communications and collaboration technology — Cisco's Webex videoconferencing platform and related conferencing products. The asserted patents in the underlying Delaware action are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,830,293 and 8,941,708 (both videoconferencing-related), and the parties' parallel PTAB filings likewise address Webex/conferencing art. Beyond that single technology cluster, the tracked record does not support any conclusion about broader technical breadth (e.g., Wi-Fi standards, pharma, mechanical).

Side preference. Both tracked appearances are on the plaintiff side (2 plaintiff / 0 defendant), with roles listed as Lead Counsel and Lead Counsel/Of Counsel. This should not be read as NPE/PAE-side practice: in this matter the plaintiff is Cisco — an operating company — bringing an affirmative patent case (apparently a declaratory-judgment/infringement response to earlier assertions against it). So the "plaintiff" posture reflects operating-company enforcement, not patent-monetization prosecution. No defense-side appearances are tracked, so no inference can be drawn about defense work.

Firm context. Fish & Richardson is the sole firm identified in the tracked data, appearing on both entries. I found no verifiable information about prior firms or any in-house role; none should be assumed.

Notable cases / outcomes. The tracked matter is Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Intelligent Protection Management Corp. (and a companion "et al." entry), filed in the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00271) against Intelligent Protection Management Corp. and Paltalk, Inc. Surrounding docket activity — which is verifiable but not attributable to this attorney individually — includes IPM's earlier 2021 suit against WebEx (Paltalk Holdings, Inc. v. WebEx Commc'ns, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-757), an August 2024 jury verdict (reported at roughly $65.7M) against Cisco, and IPM's subsequent IPR petitions against Cisco's patents (IPR2025-01588 and IPR2025-01589), which the Board discretionarily denied in February 2026. I could not confirm any verdict, settlement, or Federal Circuit outcome specifically attributable to Mr. Miller.

PTAB / IPR experience. Fish & Richardson attorneys appear in the Cisco-side PTAB filings connected to this dispute, but I did not find James S. Miller named in those papers, and no tracked IPR/PGR appearances are recorded for him. Whether he regularly appears before the PTAB is unverified.

Bar / education. Not reliably sourced — omitted rather than guessed. Given the frequency of this name, I'd recommend confirming identity (middle initial, office location, or bar number) before relying on any of the above for a filing or client-facing document.