Patent litigation attorney
John David Roehrick
1 tracked appearance — 1 plaintiff · 0 defendant.
Specialty & background
I'll research this attorney before drafting.
Let me dig into the tracked case and any other litigation or PTAB activity.
Let me verify the Cahill history, the Webroot matter, and the E-Vision outcome.
John David Roehrick — Patent Litigation Practice Summary
Specialty and focus. Roehrick is an associate in King & Spalding's Los Angeles office, in the firm's Trial and Global Disputes / Intellectual Property group, and is a registered patent attorney before the USPTO. His firm bio describes a generalist IP litigation practice spanning patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret matters in federal court, the PTO, and the ITC, with stated technology experience in computer hardware and software, electronics, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, and medical and mechanical devices, plus automotive-industry software disputes and false-advertising work involving dietary supplements. The one tracked patent case involves wearable/consumer-electronics hardware (smart glasses and eyewear electronics modules), consistent with a hardware-and-electronics docket rather than a pharma- or standards-heavy one.
Side preference. The tracked data show him on the plaintiff side only (1 plaintiff appearance, 0 defendant appearances) — representing patent owners in assertion litigation, which is closer to NPE/patent-owner work than to operating-company defense. Web search corroborates a patent-owner orientation: he appeared pro hac vice for plaintiffs Webroot, Inc. in Webroot, Inc. v. AO Kaspersky Lab (W.D. Tex.), a cybersecurity software patent case, and his firm bio notes portfolio advisement and patent prosecution experience on behalf of inventors. The sample is small, so this should be read as a tendency, not a settled practice profile.
Firm context and prior firms. Current firm: King & Spalding (Los Angeles). Prior to that he was an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, where his profile lists a focus on IP litigation; his USC (B.S., 2010) and University of San Diego (J.D., 2016) credentials match across both firm profiles, indicating the same individual. Earlier USPTO trademark filings list him with Trojan Law Offices in Beverly Hills, a registered-patent-attorney shop handling patent, trademark, and copyright matters.
Notable matters. The tracked case is E-Vision Optics, LLC et al. v. Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 8:23-cv-02013), filed October 26, 2023, in which King & Spalding represented e-Vision Optics, LLC and e-Vision Smart Optics, Inc. against Luxottica entities over eyewear-electronics patents (including the '483, '174, '541, '960, and '355 patents), accusing Ray-Ban Stories and Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses; parallel suits were also filed against Seiko Epson and Lenovo. Luxottica filed a set of IPRs against the asserted patents (IPR2024-01030, -01069, -01070, -01071, and -01072) in mid-2024. A Central District of California docket entry dated August 17, 2026 reflects a final judgment in favor of the Luxottica defendants and against e-Vision on the claims asserted (and dismissal of Luxottica's counterclaims without prejudice); this entry should be verified against the live docket before being relied on, as the retrieved copy appeared in proposed-judgment form.
PTAB / IPR. There is no indication that Roehrick personally appears as counsel of record in the parallel IPRs — the e-Vision patent-owner power of attorney named other King & Spalding attorneys (Eutermoser, Stone, Aisiku, Campbell). No reliable evidence of a regular personal IPR/PGR practice was found; treat his PTAB experience as unconfirmed.
Bar and education. Admitted to the California bar on December 7, 2016 (State Bar No. 312354); registered to practice before the USPTO. J.D., University of San Diego School of Law; B.S. in mechanical engineering, University of Southern California.
Note on sourcing: the Webroot pro hac vice appearance and the Cahill/Trojan history come from the sources cited above rather than the tracked case list, and the E-Vision outcome is drawn from a single docket document that warrants verification.
Firms
Roles
- attorney1
Cases (1)
- π plaintiffE-Vision Optics, LLC et al. v. Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al.King & Spalding · attorney