Joseph Hamilton

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Joseph Hamilton — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. Joseph P. Hamilton is a partner in Perkins Coie's Los Angeles office whose practice centers on patent disputes for life-science and technology companies, spanning district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the USPTO. The technologies visible in his tracked matters are medical devices (the Inari Medical matters concern mechanical thrombectomy/aspiration catheters and hemostasis valves) and computer hardware/software and wireless consumer-electronics technology (the Microsoft–InterDigital proceedings involve Wi-Fi/Bluetooth device-to-device sharing patents as well as 3G/4G standard-essential patent issues). His firm bio adds drug delivery, and chemical and drug/polymer processing and manufacturing — consistent with his B.S./M.S. in chemical engineering — and notes earlier experience handling patent interferences before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

Side preference. The tracked record is one plaintiff-side and one defendant-side appearance, both for operating companies rather than NPEs/PAEs. On the plaintiff side (per the tracked data) he was counsel on the Perkins Coie team for Microsoft in its patent challenges against InterDigital Patent Holdings; on the defense side he represented Inari Medical as patent owner/respondent in Imperative Care's IPR campaign. His broader PTAB work also runs both ways — petitioner-side for Microsoft, patent-owner side for Inari and, earlier, Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. No assertion practice on behalf of non-practicing entities is apparent.

Firm context and notable matters. He has been at Perkins Coie for essentially his entire career; the only other listed legal employment is Lyon & Lyon LLP in Los Angeles (associate, 2000–2002). The most prominent tracked matters: Microsoft Corp. v. InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., part of a long-running dispute that also produced the Microsoft Mobile v. InterDigital Delaware antitrust case over FRAND licensing of 3G/4G standard-essential patents, in which Judge Andrews denied InterDigital's motion to dismiss Microsoft's antitrust claims (Apr. 13, 2016), and the wireless/FRAND ITC actions; and Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03117 and roughly a dozen related IPRs). In the Inari dispute, the district court denied Inari's preliminary injunction motion (Sept. 29, 2025, finding substantial questions of validity), and the PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable in several related IPRs in 2026, with Inari's Federal Circuit appeals (Nos. 26-1552, 26-1922) dismissed by joint stipulation on Sept. 4, 2026 — outcomes adverse to the client he represented as patent owner, so no favorable trial or appellate result is attributable to him in these tracked cases.

PTAB/IPR experience. He is a frequent PTAB practitioner. Perkins Coie's 2020 press release named him among six partners recognized for most active matters and best performance in Patexia's IPR Intelligence Report (he was also ranked in the 2019 edition); his PTAB appearances include Microsoft v. InterDigital and Microsoft v. Sandpiper petitions, the Inari/Imperative IPRs (IPR2025-01021, -01025, -01264 and related proceedings), and the earlier Nu Mark/CB Distributors IPRs against Fontem Holdings.

Bar and education (sourced). Admitted in California (2000) and registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 51,770); also admitted in the Ninth and Federal Circuits and several California district courts plus E.D. Tex. J.D., USC Gould School of Law (2000); M.S. and B.S., chemical engineering, University of Southern California.