Kayvon Ghayoumi

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

Kayvon Ghayoumi — Professional Summary

Focus and technology areas. Ghayoumi is an appellate-first IP lawyer at MoloLamken whose practice centers on Federal Circuit patent appeals; his firm bio states he "has extensive experience representing clients in high-stakes patent appeals." The tracked matters and firm-described representative matters span: memory-module and semiconductor architecture (Netlist), inkjet printhead hardware (Slingshot Printing/Canon), telecommunications and 5G standard-essential-patent/FRAND disputes (Ericsson v. Lenovo), pharmaceutical and biologics litigation including Hatch-Waxman cases and defense of a +$30 million infringement verdict, agricultural chemicals (crop-protection preliminary injunction appeal), § 101 patent-eligibility appeals, and Delaware/N.D.N.J. district court patent and Hatch-Waxman matters. A source filing describes him as having a chemistry degree and a focus on "complex technology, including telecommunications technology"; his pre-MoloLamken Finnegan bio emphasized chemical, pharmaceutical and biological technologies.

Side of the docket. The tracked record is mixed but tilts defense-posture: 4 plaintiff-side versus 7 defendant-side appearances. The pattern is better described by client type than by offense/defense: in his most prominent tracked matters he represents patent owners/licensing entities — Netlist, Inc. (as appellee, in Samsung v. Netlist appeals arising from an E.D. Tex. case with a jury verdict the firm describes as "+$300 million") and Slingshot Printing LLC (as appellant in the Canon IPR appeals). He has also appeared for operating companies on defense. Notably, 8 of his 11 tracked appearances are as appellate counsel, and one as "of counsel," so the caption-side labels largely reflect appellate posture rather than a consistent NPE-prosecution or operating-company-defense book of business.

Firm context. He is an associate at MoloLamken LLP (Washington, D.C. office, with the firm's New York office also listed), where he works alongside MoloLamken's appellate patent group (Jeffrey A. Lamken, Rayiner Hashem, Michael Pattillo, et al.). Before MoloLamken he was an associate at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner in Washington, D.C., and he clerked for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Notable tracked matters and outcomes. (1) Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. — a series of Federal Circuit appeals from PTAB final written decisions invalidating inkjet printhead/thermal-sensor patent claims. Ghayoumi argued Fed. Cir. No. 2024-2132 (May 2026), which was affirmed under Rule 36; other Slingshot appeals (Nos. 25-1032, -1033, 24-1956, 24-2127) were argued by MoloLamken colleagues and affirmed in nonprecedential opinions in 2026 — results adverse to his client. (2) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc. — multiple Federal Circuit appeals (e.g., 24-1859, -2203, -2240, -2304) and a PGR in which MoloLamken represents Netlist; the appeals involve memory-module patents and PTAB unpatentability rulings, with outcomes split and several affirmances of the Board.

PTAB / IPR experience. His tracked work is IPR-appeal work — challenging or defending PTAB final written decisions at the Federal Circuit — rather than first-chair PTAB advocacy; in the Slingshot IPRs, first-instance PTAB prosecution was handled by co-counsel (Fitch Even for Slingshot; Morgan Lewis for Canon). I found no verified record of him as lead counsel in an instituted IPR/PGR trial, and his firm bio's PTAB reference is framed as "a series of Federal Circuit appeals challenging the [PTAB's] unpatentability rulings."

Bar and education. J.D., George Washington University Law School (highest honors, Order of the Coif, Notes Editor, GW Law Review; JD year 2020 per US News); B.A., University of Kentucky. Admitted in New York and the District of Columbia, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and in the Federal Circuit, Fifth Circuit, and Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Caveats: The tracked case list contains several duplicative Slingshot/Canon entries with inconsistent plaintiff/defendant labels, which appear to reflect caption direction across district court, IPR, and appeal dockets rather than differing representations; I could not independently resolve each. Details above are drawn from MoloLamken's and Finnegan's professional bios, Federal Circuit opinions and Rule 36 judgments, CourtListener dockets, and Chambers' author profile.