Kyle Howard

I'll research this attorney's background before drafting.

Kyle L. Howard — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. Howard's practice centers on U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings — inter partes review and ex parte reexamination — typically in matters running parallel to district court litigation. Haynes Boone's own practice description lists telecommunications, semiconductor processing, and medical devices as his technical areas; the tracked matters add data compression/networking (Riverbed), data storage (Pure Storage), and aerial imagery/roof-modeling software (Nearmap–EagleView). He is also a registered patent practitioner handling prosecution and counseling, and holds IEEE membership, consistent with a hardware/electrical-engineering-facing docket rather than life sciences or pharma.

Side preference: both sides, weighted toward challengers. The tracked list is split 2 plaintiff / 1 defendant, but the underlying PTAB dockets show him working as petitioner's counsel (Riverbed, Pure Storage) as well as for patent owners. In the Nearmap/EagleView IPRs (IPR2022-00734, IPR2022-01009, and related proceedings), PTAB records list Howard as counsel for patent owner Eagle View Technologies. So his invalidity work for accused defendants/ petitioners appears to be the larger share, with genuine patent-owner defense experience alongside it. One tracked plaintiff-side matter is listed without identifying details, so it cannot be characterized.

Firm context and PTAB experience. Howard is a partner in Haynes Boone's Intellectual Property group, based in the firm's Dallas–North (Richardson, Texas) office; he was promoted to partner there and has spent his registered-practitioner career at the firm, per firm and directory profiles. Before law practice he worked at a major telecommunications company managing a global IP data-network team — relevant background but not a prior law firm. His firm bio describes him as counsel in numerous IPRs "with hands-on experience with every stage of trial," and he is a member of the PTAB Bar Association.

Notable matters. The most prominent verified result is Riverbed Technology v. Realtime (E.D. Tex./PTAB, 2017): as part of a Haynes Boone team, Howard argued the oral hearing that led to PTAB final written decisions invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. Patents 8,643,513 and 7,378,992 as obvious, ending a dispute reported at roughly $4.3 million. In the Nearmap/EagleView dispute, the Board initially found for his patent-owner client on secondary considerations, but the USPTO Director granted review in February 2024 and vacated and remanded that decision for failure to resolve claim construction and to work through the Graham factors; a February 2026 nonprecedential Federal Circuit disposition in Eagle View v. Nearmap affirmed the Board's construction of "calculate"/"determine" and rejected the patent owner's accuracy arguments — an adverse outcome for that client on appeal (I could not verify the full disposition beyond the claim-construction issue). Note also that the party labels in the tracked-case list do not align cleanly with the PTAB docket roles; I have relied on the PTAB records.

Bar and education. Admitted in Texas and registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 67,568); Martindale also lists Federal Circuit admission. J.D., SMU Dedman School of Law (2007, cum laude); B.S., Biomedical Science, Texas A&M (1998); M.B.A., Texas Tech (1999). Patexia ranked him among its top-50 patent attorneys for 2022 and 2023 (prosecution-side rankings).