Joseph P. Hamilton

I'll research this attorney's professional background before drafting the summary.

Let me verify the case outcomes and check for any Federal Circuit activity.

Let me verify a few remaining details: the Unified Patents/IPR angle, Hamilton's broader litigation docket, and firm changes.

Joseph P. Hamilton — Perkins Coie (Los Angeles), patent litigation partner

Focus areas. Hamilton's practice centers on life sciences and technology patent disputes, with a technical background in chemical engineering (B.S./M.S., USC) and an emphasis on medical devices and drug delivery, chemical/polymer processing, computer hardware and software, and consumer electronics. His litigation record reflects that mix: catheter-based mechanical thrombectomy devices (the Inari Medical / Imperative Care dispute over aspiration and hemostasis-valve patents), electronic cigarette and vaping hardware (Fontem Ventures/Holdings v. NJOY and related cases), gaming and motion-tracking technology (Nintendo matters), paintball pressure regulators, wastewater treatment, and semiconductor/computer input devices. Firm-published representative matters also list a Section 337 investigation on ground fault circuit interrupters.

Side preference. He works both sides rather than specializing in either assertion or defense. The tracked docket shows 3 defendant-side and 2 plaintiff-side appearances, but the appearances are largely the same underlying technology fight viewed from different captions: he represents Inari Medical as patent owner in the IPR proceedings (Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.) and also appears for Inari as plaintiff in Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc., with related entries for defendant-side designations. Historically he has represented patent holders (Fontem, Sunworld) and accused infringers (Nintendo) in roughly equal measure. He is not an NPE/PAE-focused filer; his plaintiff-side work is for operating companies asserting their own products' patents.

Firm context. Partner in Perkins Coie's Los Angeles office; the firm's legacy biography lists prior employment at Lyon & Lyon LLP (Los Angeles, 2000–2002). Note that a 2026 USPTO filing in the Inari IPRs lists counsel as "Ashurst Perkins Coie US LLP," indicating the firm is now operating under a combined name — I could not verify the firm-combination details from a primary source, so treat that as an observation from the docket rather than confirmed firm history.

Notable matters and outcomes.

• Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo — Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness (no algorithm disclosed for "integrator means"), 753 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
• Quintal Research Group v. Nintendo of America — summary judgment win for Nintendo (N.D. Cal.); Shared Memory Graphics v. Apple — dismissal obtained for Nintendo.
• Fontem Ventures/Holdings v. NJOY and related e-cigarette filings — represented Fontem as plaintiff in a multi-defendant campaign (C.D. Cal. and elsewhere).
• Sunworld Industrial v. Dye Precision — judgment and damages award for Sunworld on pressure-regulator patents (C.D. Cal.).
• Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-03117 (N.D. Cal.) — Inari's motion for preliminary injunction was denied on Sept. 29, 2025 (serious questions of validity; no irreparable harm; no causal nexus), and the district court stayed the case pending the parallel IPRs. In the IPRs, the PTAB issued final written decisions finding all challenged claims unpatentable in at least IPR2024-01157 (Jan. 2026) and IPR2025-00289 (June 2026), with Law360 reporting a June 10, 2026 PTAB decision invalidating an Inari thrombectomy patent. Inari's request for discretionary denial in IPR2025-00289 was denied, and Inari (now alongside assignee Stryker) obtained a 30-day extension to seek judicial review of the June 2026 decision. These outcomes were adverse to his client, and I have not seen a reported win for him in the Inari campaign.

PTAB / IPR experience. Yes — this is a substantial part of his practice. He appears as lead or back-up counsel in numerous IPRs, including the Fontem e-cigarette proceedings (e.g., IPR2014-01529, IPR2016-01527, IPR2017-00342, and related joinder matters) and a large 2025–2026 Inari matter set (IPR2025-00289, -01021, -01025, -01264, among others), handling deposition disputes, discretionary-denial briefing, and expert examination. His firm biography states he was ranked in Patexia's 2019 IPR Intelligence Report for active matters and performance in the IPR space.

Bar / education. California bar (admitted 2000) and registered before the USPTO (Reg. No. 51,770); J.D., USC Gould School of Law (2000, Articles Editor, Southern California Law Review), M.S. and B.S. in Chemical Engineering, USC.

Caveat on the tracked list: two entries styled "Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Inari Medical Inc." appear to be database artifacts of the Unified Patents PTAB data portal rather than adversary proceedings in which Unified Patents was a party; I could not verify a Unified Patents-challenged Inari IPR, so those entries should be confirmed before being cited as appearances.