Keane A. Barger

I'll research this attorney and the tracked case before writing.

Specialty / focus. Keane A. Barger's published practice is broader IP and entertainment litigation, not patent litigation as a core specialty. His Loeb & Loeb bio and Tennessee Bar CLE faculty listing describe a focus on copyright, trademark, right-of-publicity and defamation disputes, plus complex commercial litigation (healthcare, financial services), with clients including music publishers/record labels, artists, PROs, film companies and a professional sports franchise; none of those descriptions mention patents. His patent docket is correspondingly thin. The tracked matter involves a mechanical/consumer-product patent — a "bridge rope assembly" for saddle-hunting harnesses (U.S. Pat. No. 11,964,175) — and an earlier Nashville patent case in the same name appears at HLFIP Holding, Inc. v. Rutherford County, Tenn., No. 3:19-cv-00714 (M.D. Tenn.), concerning inmate telephone/communications technology, where the same-name attorney was listed at Riley, Warnock & Jacobson.

Side preference. There is no meaningful pattern. The tracked case is recorded as plaintiff-side, but the underlying M.D. Tenn. docket shows Barger entering an appearance for CRÜZR Saddles LLC, i.e., the accused-infringer defendant in Tethrd, LLC v. CRÜZR Saddles LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00076 (filed Aug. 12, 2024). The other documented patent appearance (HLFIP) was for a patent-owning plaintiff. On this record he is not an NPE/PAE specialist and not a dedicated defense-side patent litigator; his patent work is incidental to a general IP/commercial practice for operating companies. (Caveat: the tracked caption "CRü v. Tethrd" does not match the district court caption; it may be a mis-caption of the district case or a reference to the PTAB proceeding CRÜZR Saddles LLC v. Tethrd, LLC, IPR2025-01407.)

Firm context. Current firm is Loeb & Loeb LLP (Nashville office; he is also listed at the firm's Washington, D.C. address in bar directories). Court filings from 2019–2021 list him at Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, also Nashville. The timing and mechanism of the move to Loeb & Loeb are not verified in the sources reviewed. His practice is centered in Tennessee, not in a national patent-trial shop.

Notable outcomes / PTAB. In Tethrd v. CRÜZR Saddles, Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. (M.D. Tenn.) denied CRÜZR's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on May 13, 2025 — an adverse result for Barger's client. In the parallel PTAB proceeding, CRÜZR Saddles LLC v. Tethrd, LLC, IPR2025-01407, the Director denied institution of inter partes review of the '175 patent on Feb. 24, 2026, holding the petition's video/forum-post evidence failed the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). Counsel of record in that IPR were Sterlington PLLC (for CRÜZR) and Bradley Arant (for Tethrd); no Barger IPR/PGR appearance is confirmed in the sources reviewed, so no PTAB practice can be attributed to him.

Bar / education. Vanderbilt University Law School, J.D. 2014 (Order of the Coif; Articles Editor, Vanderbilt Law Review); B.A., Centre College, summa cum laude; law clerk to Judge Susan H. Black, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; admitted in Tennessee (2014) and D.C., and before the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits and the Tennessee federal district courts (per Loeb & Loeb). Note: a "Barger" appearing in unrelated patent-inventorship decisions is a party/inventor, not this attorney.