Kyle L. Howard

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

Let me verify the tracked case and any additional litigation details.

Let me check the Federal Circuit appeal outcome and confirm firm/bar details.

Professional Summary — Kyle L. Howard

Specialty / focus areas. Howard is a Haynes and Boone partner whose practice centers on post-grant proceedings at the USPTO (inter partes review and ex parte reexamination) and on patent prosecution and counseling. Firm and directory profiles describe his technical experience as spanning telecommunications, semiconductor processing, and medical devices; his educational background is in biomedical science. The one tracked litigation appearance, the Nearmap/EagleView dispute, involves geospatial/aerial-imaging software and database technology, consistent with the electronics-and-software cast of his PTAB work.

Side preference. The tracked data (1 appearance, 0 plaintiff / 1 defendant, all as lead counsel) is thin, but it aligns with the broader public record: Howard predominantly represents operating companies defending or challenging patents rather than NPE/PAE plaintiffs. He has acted as IPR petitioner counsel for technology companies (e.g., Riverbed Technology, Pure Storage) and as respondent/patent-owner counsel for EagleView in the Nearmap IPRs. The single tracked case, Nearmap US, Inc. v. EagleView Technologies, Inc., lists him on the defendant side as lead counsel for EagleView.

Firm context. Howard is a partner at Haynes and Boone, LLP, based in the firm's Dallas–North (formerly Richardson) office. Before joining the firm he worked at a major telecommunications company, where he managed a team responsible for design and management of an IP-centric data network. No prior law-firm history is well sourced.

Notable cases / outcomes. His most prominently publicized result is the 2017 Riverbed Technology matter, in which the PTAB issued final written decisions holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,643,513 and 7,378,992 (Realtime Data data-compression patents) unpatentable as obvious; Howard handled the oral hearing. He was lead counsel on the Pure Storage IPR petition against Digital Cache (U.S. Patent No. 6,851,015). In the Nearmap/EagleView dispute he served as respondent counsel for EagleView in IPR2022-00734 and IPR2022-01009. Note that outcomes in that campaign were mixed: the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB obviousness findings against two EagleView patents (Nos. 8,670,961 and 8,078,436) in Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2026), while the PTAB separately denied institution of Nearmap's 2024 IPRs against two other EagleView patents. The Federal Circuit appeal was argued by a different Haynes and Boone partner, so it is not attributable to Howard.

PTAB / IPR experience. This is the core of his practice — he appears regularly in IPR and other post-grant proceedings, frequently as lead counsel, and is a member of the PTAB Bar Association. He was ranked in Patexia's top-50 best-performing patent attorneys overall in both 2022 (47th) and 2023 (48th), and in its high-tech rankings.

Bar / education. Admitted in Texas and registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 67,568); J.D., SMU Dedman School of Law (2007, cum laude); B.S., Biomedical Science, Texas A&M University (1998); M.B.A., Texas Tech University (1999).

Caveat: the structured tracking data reflects only one court appearance, so the side-preference read above leans on IPR filings and firm/directory descriptions rather than a large litigation docket.