Lauren Elizabeth Douville

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Good initial results — let me verify several threads.

Lauren Elizabeth Douville — Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP (Kansas City) — USPTO Registration No. 77,145

Specialty / focus. Douville is a first-chair IP litigator whose practice is described as complex patent, trademark and copyright litigation across telecommunications (including VoIP and wireless/networking standards), video-on-demand and streaming systems, computer software, power-grid systems, navigation and optical sensing. Her published prosecution-side applicant affiliations (RealWear, Evenflo, Doosan Enerbility, Excel Industries, Reinke Manufacturing, Brumate) skew toward consumer products, wearables, heavy equipment and power generation rather than pharma or life sciences, despite her undergraduate biology degree.

Side preference. The authoritative tracked data for this report shows only two appearances, both on the defendant side (0 plaintiff / 2 defendant), drawn from a very small, unnamed sample — both entries are counsel-role matters at Shook with no case caption. That sample should not be read as her overall practice profile: public filings and firm announcements place her on the plaintiff/patent-owner side in several of her most prominent matters, including Sprint Communications v. Time Warner Cable, Touchstream Technologies v. Google, and Universal Connectivity Technologies v. HP. On the available record she is best characterized as a both-sides litigator who defends operating companies and also represents patent owners and smaller assertion-side clients, rather than a dedicated defense-only or NPE-only practitioner.

Notable cases and outcomes. Her most cited result is Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA (W.D. Tex.), where she was a trial team member on the July 2023 five-day trial that produced a $338.7 million jury verdict against Google over Chromecast streaming/playback patents (all three asserted patents found infringed). Firm sources state the verdict was protected when Google's three IPR challenges failed in September 2023 final written decisions; the Federal Circuit later affirmed the PTAB under Rule 36 (Oct. 14, 2025, Nos. 24-1207/08/10). Note that appellate briefing lists Boies Schiller and Shook's Rob Reckers as appellee counsel, so the Rule 36 affirmance should not be attributed to Douville personally. She was also on the Shook team that won a ~$140 million willful-infringement verdict for Sprint Communications against Time Warner Cable (D. Kan., March 3, 2017; D. Kan. No. 11-cv-02686), a result later added to the NLJ Verdicts Hall of Fame. In Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. v. HP Inc. (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-04097, and related E.D. Tex. actions), she appears for the plaintiff assertion entity; that matter produced a mixed outcome, with UCT's U.S. Patent 9,232,265 infringement contentions struck and a stipulated partial judgment entered for HP in January 2026. She has also appeared as counsel on Federal Circuit appeals, including Digital Ally, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc. (No. 19-2065, for appellee Taser/Axon) and Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Co. (No. 23-2043).

PTAB/IPR and credentials. She appears in PTAB papers connected with IPR2024-01479 (the HP challenge to UCT's '265 patent) and has been part of teams defending patent-owner claims through IPR and appeal, though the available record does not show her as a routine lead PTAB advocate — Shook's Touchstream IPR work was led by other partners. Sources conflict on PTAB authorship specifics, so treat this as an area of involvement rather than a specialty. Bar/admissions: Missouri and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, plus registered patent attorney status with the USPTO; J.D., University of Kansas School of Law (2012, Kansas Law Review articles editor); B.A. in Biology, University of Wisconsin–Madison (2008). Recognized in Ingram's 40 Under Forty (2024) and part of the Law360-recognized Touchstream damages win (Top Patent Damages Awards of 2023).

Caveat: the two tracked appearances supplied for this profile were unnamed and could not be matched to specific dockets, so the defendant-side counts above are reported as given and not corroborated by the public record, which shows substantial plaintiff-side work.