Jerry D. Tice II

I'll research this attorney's background and verify the case information.

Let me gather more details on his prior firms and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Let me check the VideoLabs/Roku matters and the Federal Circuit appeal outcome.

Jerry D. Tice II — patent litigation practice summary

Focus areas. Tice is a trial lawyer whose practice centers on complex patent infringement litigation, with a technology mix spanning telecommunications and wireless networking (including Wi-Fi security standards), video encoding/compression (H.264), power circuitry and wireless power, GPS, display hardware and software, semiconductors, computer hardware/software, and mechanical arts. He is a registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 73,582) and litigates in the Eastern, Western, and Northern Districts of Texas, Delaware, and other federal district courts, as well as before the International Trade Commission.

Side preference. He works predominantly on the patent-owner (assertion/monetization) side, representing licensing entities and NPE/PAE-type plaintiffs such as VideoLabs, Secure Wi-Fi, Relink, Identitii, Vista Peak Ventures, Sovereign Peak Ventures, Cellular Communications Equipment, Valencell, and Super Interconnect Technologies. The tracked 6 plaintiff / 2 defendant split understates this: the two "defendant"-side appearances (Roku, Inc. v. VideoLabs and Dell Technologies Inc. v. VideoLabs) are defenses of VideoLabs as the patent owner in parallel declaratory-judgment/IPR proceedings, which is consistent with his plaintiff-side assertion practice rather than operating-company defense work. His docket therefore is weighted toward patent holders rather than defending large operating companies.

Firm context. Tice is a partner at Bunsow De Mory LLP (Redwood City, California), which he joined in 2023. Before that he practiced at Kramer Day Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP (later Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP; earlier Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP), and earlier at Bragalone Conroy PC in Dallas. Public profiles list him variously as "Jerry D. Tice," "Jerry D. Tice II," and "Jerry Duane Tice II"; these appear to be the same attorney, and I did not find a separate practitioner requiring disclaimer.

Notable matters, PTAB, and credentials. He appears frequently before the PTAB, typically as back-up/patent-owner counsel, and has notched multiple institution-stage wins: in Dell Technologies Inc. v. VideoLabs, Inc. (IPR2022-00628/-00629/-00701), the Board denied institution of three video-coding IPRs in October 2022 on priority/written-description grounds (patents tied to the H.264 standard); similarly, institution was denied against Relink in Tesla Inc. v. Relink US LLC (IPR2024-00389), against Identitii in two JPMorgan Chase IPRs, and against Express Mobile in Google IPRs. In Secure Wi-Fi LLC v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex.), he led the team in defeating four Samsung IPRs; reported accounts indicate the district court case settled on the eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings. He also represented Garrity Power Services against Samsung (settled on the eve of trial), handled a multi-defendant display-patent campaign for Vista Peak Ventures, and represented a complainant in an ITC investigation over solid-state storage drive patents (settled before the evidentiary hearing). He is listed on the Bunsow De Mory team in a Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24-1909, argued by Marc Belloli, with Tice and Elizabeth Day on the brief). He was named to Benchmark Litigation's "40 & Under" list. Education and admissions: J.D., magna cum laude, SMU Dedman School of Law (2014); B.S. in Electrical Engineering, magna cum laude, Texas A&M University (2011); admitted in Texas and before the USPTO and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Note on sourcing: the case list and firm/Benchmark profiles are the primary basis here; I was unable to independently verify a final outcome in the VideoLabs–Roku and VideoLabs–TCL matters or a specific Federal Circuit result tied directly to Tice, so those are described only as tracked/pending rather than resolved.