Krishnan Padmanabhan

I'll research this attorney's background and verify the details before writing.

Let me verify the tracked cases and notable outcomes.

Krishnan ("KP") Padmanabhan is a first-chair patent litigator whose practice centers on high-technology disputes. Winston & Strawn's own biography and Legal 500 profile describe his technical focus as telecommunications, networking, semiconductors, and medical devices, with particular depth in wireless and multimedia delivery technologies; the tracked docket confirms this, from IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) wireless patents in Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC v. Cisco to secure-payment card technology in CardWare Inc. v. Samsung, interactive/multimedia delivery work in Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd. v. Tubi, and distributed mobile-network architecture in Lemko Corp. v. AT&T. He worked as a semiconductor engineer for a major aerospace corporation before law school, a background routinely cited in his firm bios.

Side preference is almost entirely defense-side. All 7 tracked appearances are as counsel for defendants, with zero plaintiff-side appearances. The clients are operating technology companies — Cisco (twice), Samsung, AT&T, Meta Platforms, and Tubi — typically defending against NPE/PAE assertions and competitor suits rather than prosecuting for patent holders. His roles skew senior: lead counsel in three tracked matters plus one additional "Lead Counsel" designation, and Counsel or counsel in the remainder.

Firm context. All tracked appearances are attributed to Winston & Strawn, where he spent roughly 15 years, became managing partner of the New York office (announced February 2025), co-chaired the firm's Technology, Media & Telecom Industry Group, and sat on its executive committee. Web sources indicate he subsequently moved to Fenwick & West as a litigation partner in New York (Fenwick press release, April 2026); the tracked case data predates that move, so it still reflects Winston & Strawn.

Notable matters and PTAB work. In CardWare Inc. v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex.), he represented Samsung as lead counsel; the district court largely rejected Samsung's indefiniteness arguments at claim construction, and the case and parallel PTAB proceedings (PGR2023-00012/13, IPR2023-00196) were terminated by settlement in late 2023 after the Board instituted review. He has substantial IPR/PGR activity, appearing as back-up counsel on petitions and in related district court and IPR matters (e.g., BillJCo v. Cisco/HPE/Apple and Entropic Communications-related proceedings). A Lemko Federal Circuit appeal in the broader Lemko campaign (against Microsoft/Affirmed Networks) resulted in a Rule 36 affirmance of PTAB invalidity findings in April 2026; that appeal was brought by Lemko, not by Padmanabhan's client. No trial verdicts in his tracked matters are verifiable from available sources, and one tracked appearance is docketed without a case name.

Bar/education: Admitted in California and New York; B.S. in electrical engineering, University of Michigan (2001); J.D., University of California, Hastings College of the Law (2007, now UC College of the Law, San Francisco).