Kaustuv M. Das

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Practice summary — Kaustuv M. Das

Specialty / focus areas. Das's patent work has centered on electronics and mechanical technologies rather than life sciences. Third-party analytics of his case history characterize his docket as spanning semiconductors/optics and communications (the largest buckets), software and security, mechanical engineering/manufacturing, and transportation/e-commerce. His tracked litigation appearances involve mechanical/consumer-products subject matter — magnetic clip-on eyewear patents — and his in-house work has focused on hybrid DRAM and flash memory, LED, display, and solar technologies, consistent with his technical background (Ph.D. in mathematics, Caltech). His Seattle University faculty biography likewise emphasizes patent and trade secret litigation and licensing across a broad technology range. His practice has also included trade secret and unfair competition matters.

Side preference. The structured data shows one plaintiff-side and one defendant-side appearance, technically, but both captions arise from the same multi-year eyewear dispute: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc. (defendant-side, Merchant & Gould) and the mirror-image Altair Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. (plaintiff-side, listed as co-counsel). Publicly reported filings in the dispute list Das as counsel for Altair Eyewear and its parent VSP — an operating company/distributor — so his tracked litigation work is best described as defense-side representation of an operating company against an assertive licensor (Aspex/Contour). That should be read alongside his career trajectory, which since roughly 2010 has been on the licensing/enforcement side (Intellectual Ventures, IPValue), where he has worked on prosecution, portfolio analysis, and monetization rather than defense. In short: he has sat on both sides of the table — defense of operating companies in private practice, and licensing/monetization in-house — with no evidence of a sustained NPE-plaintiff litigation docket.

Firm context. Merchant & Gould is the only firm in the tracked case list, but his career is broader. His Seattle University faculty profile and other professional bios report that he is currently Vice President, IP Attorney at IPValue Management, Inc. (in-house, patent prosecution, analysis, monetization, and portfolio management); before that he was Chief Counsel, Intellectual Property at Intellectual Ventures, and held in-house licensing roles at Micron Technology. In private practice he has been at Perkins Coie, Davis Wright Tremaine, and Merchant & Gould. He also teaches Patent Law as an adjunct at Seattle University School of Law (reported as 12+ years).

Notable matters and outcomes. In the Aspex/Altair eyewear litigation, the S.D.N.Y. granted Altair summary judgment of non-infringement on all three asserted patents (485 F. Supp. 2d 310 (2007)), building on an earlier claim construction that limited "frame" to rimmed frames. The Federal Circuit (288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) affirmed non-infringement as to the '811 and '896 patents and the denial of summary judgment on standing, but reversed the "frame" construction and vacated the '054 judgment. On remand, after transfer to the District of Massachusetts, the court entered judgment for Altair, holding the '054 patent invalid (818 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Mass. 2011)). Altair also pursued reexamination of the '054 patent at the USPTO along the way. These results are verifiable in published opinions; I found no reported verdict after trial or settlement figures tied to Das.

PTAB / IPR experience. His documented USPTO contested practice is primarily reexamination, not AIA trial work: his professional bios reference managing re-examination proceedings, and the Altair reexamination described above fits that pattern. An attorney-analytics listing associates him with PTAB and Federal Circuit activity and databases show several 2012–2014 proceedings, but I could not independently verify specific IPR/PGR petition numbers or outcomes attributable to him, so any characterization of a regular IPR practice would be unsupported.

Bar and education. Admitted in Washington (2003) and before the USPTO, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and several district courts (including W.D./E.D. Wash., D. Idaho, N.D. Ill., and E.D. Tex.); J.D., University of Washington School of Law (high honors, Order of the Coif); Ph.D. in mathematics, Caltech; B.A. in mathematics, Vassar College. Note the name is shared by unrelated individuals in public records, so records should be matched on the Ph.D./Washington bar detail.