Kevin M. Post

I'll research this attorney before writing the summary.

Note: those results are for a different attorney (Kevin J. Post at Sheppard Mullin). Let me search specifically for Kevin M. Post.

Search results keep surfacing Kevin J. Post (Sheppard Mullin). Let me verify the tracked case and check Pillsbury's directory directly.

Summary: Kevin M. Post — patent litigation

Verification note. Public sources retrieved for this profile did not surface a verifiable attorney bio, firm page, or court appearance record for a "Kevin M. Post" at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. Web searches for that name consistently returned a different lawyer, Kevin J. Post (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton; previously Ropes & Gray), whose practice description and case history do not match the tracked appearance here. The two should not be conflated, and the profile below rests primarily on the authoritative case data rather than web-verified credentials.

Specialty / focus areas. The single tracked matter, Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., is a software patent case involving synchronized/co‑browsing technology — specifically a web-based "cobrowsing" feature accused of infringing patents on establishing synchronized browsing sessions between a host and invitee device (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,483,448, 9,185,145, and 8,527,591). That places the practice in the enterprise software / internet applications space rather than Wi‑Fi standards, pharma, or mechanical arts, though one case is a thin basis for characterizing a broader technical focus.

Side preference. Counts are 0 plaintiff-side and 1 defendant-side, as lead counsel. On the available record he functions as a defense-side litigator for operating companies rather than a plaintiff-side filer for NPEs/PAEs — here representing Intuit, a large software and tax-preparation company, against a small patent-holding plaintiff.

Firm context. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman is the firm of record for the tracked appearance. No prior firm history for this individual could be verified, and I found no indication he is in-house. Any earlier firms listed in secondary aggregators belong to the similarly named Kevin J. Post and should not be attributed here.

Notable case and outcome. Samesurf v. Intuit was filed in the Southern District of California (Case Nos. 3:22-cv-00412 / 2:22-cv-02060), with McKool Smith for Samesurf. Intuit also petitioned for inter partes review, resulting in IPR2023-00339 and IPR2023-00342, in which the Board found all claims of the '145 patent obvious over Lebrun in view of Wang. The Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion, Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., Nos. 2024-2268, -2269 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2026), and separately affirmed in Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. 24-2298 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2026). Caveat: the dockets and Federal Circuit opinions I reviewed name Fenwick & West attorneys (including Michael J. Sacksteder and Jennifer R. Bush) as Intuit's counsel of record at the PTAB and on appeal; I did not locate a filing crediting Pillsbury or Kevin M. Post in this matter, so the extent of his personal role in the IPR and appellate outcomes is unconfirmed.

PTAB / IPR experience. Intuit was an active petitioner in parallel IPRs arising from this dispute, so the matter involved PTAB work. Whether Post personally appears in IPR/PGR proceedings — and how regularly — could not be verified from available sources.

Bar / education. No bar admissions or education information for Kevin M. Post was reliably sourced; omitted rather than inferred.