Patent litigation attorney
Kumar Vinnakota
1 tracked appearance — 0 plaintiff · 1 defendant.
Specialty & background
I'll research this attorney before drafting.
Kumar Vinnakota (Rajkumar Vinnakota) — patent litigation summary
Specialty / focus. Vinnakota is a Dallas-based IP and complex commercial litigator whose patent work spans a wide technology range rather than a single niche: infrared camera/gas-leak detection (Leak Surveys v. FLIR), consumer video doorbell and home-security hardware and software (SB IP Holdings/SkyBell; Contour IP Holding v. SZ DJI), automotive electronics interfaces (Nissan), electronic lighting ballasts, semiconductor and high-performance computing patents (Microsoft's IPRs against DirectStream/Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe), and food-processing/enzymatic technologies for a research institute. Firm materials also emphasize oil & gas, chemical, petrochemical, biotech, pharma and semiconductor portfolios, and he is listed in Cole Schotz's Life Sciences industry group; he has commented publicly on biosimilar/BPCIA "patent dance" reform, indicating some biologics-side interest. His technical background is chemical engineering (process engineer at ExxonMobil Chemical), so mechanical/chemical matters are a genuine part of the practice, not just electronics.
Side preference. Mixed. The tracked database records a single appearance, on the defense side (Vivint Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLC, in which Cole Schotz acted for SB IP Holdings as the respondent/patent owner). Web-verifiable matters show him on both sides, and arguably more often for patent owners/plaintiffs: he has represented Leak Surveys, SB IP Holdings/SkyBell, Contour IP Holding and Intellectual Tech as patent enforcers, while defending accused products in the Nissan multi-patent case and in Swinford v. 360Booth. Note that a Law360 firm page lists 34 matters for him at Cole Schotz, so the one-entry tracked count substantially understates his actual docket.
Firm context. Member at Cole Schotz P.C., Dallas office, since October 2021, when he and Sean Hsu joined from Janik Vinnakota LLP, the Dallas IP boutique he co-founded. Before that he was a partner at a Dallas IP litigation boutique (PTAB filings show Skiermont Puckett LLP) and earlier an associate at Andrews Kurth LLP in Dallas. His career has been in private practice rather than in-house.
Notable matters and outcomes. The most prominent tracked matter is the SkyBell/SB IP Holdings dispute with Vivint: an Eastern District of Texas jury returned a $45.4 million willful-infringement verdict on October 23, 2023 against Vivint on two video doorbell patents (Cole Schotz team including Vinnakota); the court declined to enhance the award in August 2024. He also co-led the Cole Schotz team that secured a defense win in Swinford v. 360Booth Inc. (M.D. Fla.), where the court ordered on July 28, 2025 that three of four asserted patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct — a rare trial sequencing in which the inequitable-conduct claims were tried first. He is also counsel of record in Contour IP Holding v. SZ DJI (C.D. Cal.) and, per Law360, in IDrive v. Microsoft (C.D. Cal.). I could not verify from reliable sources the disposition of his Federal Circuit appeal in Leak Surveys v. FLIR beyond a Rule 36 affirmance (Nos. 2016-1299/1300, Jan. 10, 2017).
PTAB / IPR experience. Yes — recurring, primarily as patent-owner side counsel. He argued before the Board in Leak Surveys v. FLIR (IPR2014-00411, IPR2015-00065) and briefed the resulting Federal Circuit appeal; he represented DirectStream/Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe as patent owner in the Microsoft IPR2018-01601–01604 series; and he appeared for SB IP Holdings at the April 2024 oral hearing in Vivint v. SB IP Holdings (IPR2022-01449). He was also counsel of record on a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court filing (No. 24-114) in a patent matter, though the precise posture is not confirmed by my sources.
Bar / education. Texas Bar since 2003 (No. 24042337); admitted to the Federal and Fifth Circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court, and multiple federal district courts; J.D., University of Texas School of Law (2003); B.S. cum laude, Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University (1998).
Firms
Cases (1)
- Δ defendantVivint Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLCCole Schotz