Jonathan B. Pitner

I'll research this attorney before writing the summary.

Let me dig deeper with more targeted searches.

Professional summary — Jonathan B. Pitner

Note on sourcing: My web searches did not surface a public Fish & Richardson attorney bio, a bar-admission record, or any education information for an attorney by this name, and I was unable to verify details of the single tracked case beyond the docket entry itself. The summary below separates what is documented in the authoritative case list from what is unverified; I have not filled gaps with inference.

Tracked practice and specialty. The case list contains one matter: Sampo IP, LLC v. Aetna Inc., in which Mr. Pitner appears on the defendant side for Fish & Richardson. That single data point supports only a narrow inference — defense-side patent litigation, most likely for an operating company (Aetna) accused of infringement by a licensing/assertion plaintiff. The technology area at issue is not verifiable from available sources; I found no practice-area description tied to this attorney. Any characterization of his subject-matter focus (wireless/standards, software, pharma, mechanical, etc.) would be speculation on this record.

Side preference. On the authoritative counts, his tracked appearances are 0 plaintiff-side / 1 defendant-side. That is a very small sample, so the appropriate reading is "identified defense-side in this dataset" rather than a demonstrated preference for defense work or operating-company representation over NPE/PAE plaintiff work.

Firm context. Fish & Richardson is the only firm associated with him in the tracked data, and I could not verify any prior firm history or in-house role. For context only (not attributed to him individually): Fish & Richardson is a national IP boutique whose PTAB filings span wireless/standards-related matters, semiconductor and memory patents, and medical-device technologies, based on the firm-level petition documents surfaced in search.

Notable cases, outcomes, and PTAB experience. Sampo IP, LLC v. Aetna Inc. is the only case name available; I found no reported verdict, settlement, or Federal Circuit appeal attributable to it. There is no verified evidence that Mr. Pitner personally appears in IPR/PGR proceedings — the PTAB results retrieved were firm-level matters with no attorney-name attribution to him. (Caution: search results also returned AlexSam, Inc. v. Aetna Inc., No. 3:19-cv-01025 (D. Conn.), an unrelated Aetna patent case with a different plaintiff; it should not be conflated with Sampo IP.)

Bar / education. Not reliably sourced; omitted rather than estimated.

Bottom line for diligence: The public record on this attorney is thin. If more is needed — bar admissions, technology focus, or PTAB involvement — the most reliable next steps would be his Fish & Richardson firm profile page, the PACER docket and counsel-of-record filings in Sampo IP v. Aetna, and a USPTO PTAB attorney-name search.