John B. Pegram

I'll research this attorney's background and practice.

John B. Pegram — Fish & Richardson (New York), of counsel

Specialty / focus areas. Pegram maintains a broad-gauged IP litigation, licensing, and counseling practice rather than a single-technology niche. Fish & Richardson's own profile lists an unusually wide range of subject matter he has handled — semiconductors and power semiconductor devices (SCRs, Triacs), cathode ray tubes, computer disk drives and controllers, electronic displays, fiber optics, inkjet and impact printers, photocopiers, batteries, medical implants and orthopedic devices, automobile components, antibiotics, DNA polymerases, and fermentation/enzyme production, among others. On the tracked docket, the relevant technology is smart-thermostat / energy-management hardware and software. He is also a long-standing member of Fish's Europe and Japan teams and is the firm's principal author on the EU Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court, an area he writes and speaks on regularly.

Side preference. The tracked record shows one appearance, on the defendant side (0 plaintiff / 1 defendant), and that is consistent with the longer record: his published case list is dominated by defense work for operating companies and suppliers (Commodore, Chrysler/Mitsubishi, Mars, Kenwood, Toyobo, Courtaulds, Philco) alongside some offensive assertions for corporate patent owners such as General Electric. He is best characterized as a defense-side litigator for operating companies, not an NPE/PAE prosecutor.

Firm context. Current firm is Fish & Richardson P.C., where he has been based in the New York office as a senior principal and now of counsel. No prior-firm history is well sourced in the accessible record; I could not verify any earlier employer, so none is stated.

Notable cases and outcomes. The tracked matter is EcoFactor, Inc. v. Resideo Technologies, Inc. (W.D. Tex., No. 6:22-cv-00069-ADA), a smart-thermostat infringement suit in which he is listed as of counsel for Resideo; I did not find a publicly verified final judgment in that specific case. His published representative matters include Atari v. Commodore (joystick design/utility patent and trade dress — settled), Avrea v. Chrysler (coolant-recovery systems, lead counsel for Chrysler and Mitsubishi), Highland Industries v. Toyobo (air-bag fabric — plaintiff voluntarily dismissed), and Fontijn v. Okamoto (patent interference/appeal won for Akzona). Note that the better-known EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC litigation — the $20M Nest verdict, the June 2024 Federal Circuit affirmance, and the May 2025 en banc decision vacating the damages award and remanding for a new damages trial — is a related EcoFactor case involving the same patent family, but Pegram's tracked appearance is the Resideo matter, and I found no source placing him on the Google appeal.

PTAB / IPR experience. He writes and lectures extensively on PTAB practice — his articles and presentations address the Office Trial Practice Guide revisions, word-count limits, Rule 42.11 sanctions, and the Oil States / SAS decisions — and he authored a widely cited empirical study of IPR institution and survival rates. That is substantial subject-matter fluency in AIA trial practice; the public record I reviewed does not, however, establish him as a frequent named IPR advocate.

Bar / education. B.A. in physics, Columbia University (1960); LL.B. (listed as J.D. in one directory) from New York University School of Law (1965); admitted in New York (1965) and registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 25,198). He is a past president of NYIPLA, a past member of AIPLA's board, and a past chair of the U.S. Bar–EPO Liaison Council.

Sourcing note: most of the above rests on firm and bar-association bios, the Fordham IP Institute speaker profiles, and the public docket materials for the EcoFactor cases. No personal or non-professional information is included.