Marcus Benavides

Practice focus. Marcus Benavides's tracked docket is concentrated in patent-infringement litigation over electronics and connected-device technologies, almost entirely in the Eastern District of Texas. On the plaintiff side he represents licensing/NPE entities asserting patents against operating companies — e.g., the named Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Assa Abloy IP AB matter and related Stingray suits against Allegion, Vivint, Resideo, and Signify (access-control/smart-home/IoT devices), plus display/electronics cases for Vista Peak Ventures against Japan Display, HannStar, and TCL and for Super Interconnect Technologies against Huawei. He has also been admitted pro hac vice for Sovereign Peak Ventures v. Verifone in the Northern District of Georgia.

Side preference and firm context. His appearances skew strongly toward plaintiffs — 4 of 6 tracked matters (with two for defendants) — and the plaintiff work is predominantly for non-practicing/licensing entities rather than operating companies. He is of counsel at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, a small Dallas-based litigation boutique (Dallas, TX) whose other named lawyers (Bragalone, Saad, Olejko) appear alongside him on the same dockets. Public sources do not reveal a prior firm tied to his patent litigation career.

Notable matters and PTAB/IPR exposure. The most prominent tracked matter by name is Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Assa Abloy IP AB. I found no verified verdicts, Federal Circuit appeals, or settlements for him in public sources. On PTAB/IPR: he appeared for patent owner Valencell Inc. in Fitbit Inc. v. Valencell Inc. (IPR2017-00319), indicating patent-owner-side IPR experience, though I found no evidence of a regular or high-volume IPR practice.

Bar and education. Admitted to the Texas bar in 2005 (Bar No. 24035574); J.D., St. Mary's University School of Law (2005); B.S., University of Texas at Austin (1995) — per Avvo and Martindale listings. No evidence found of USPTO patent-agent registration; note that directory profiles under this name also carry personal-injury practice listings that appear either outdated or conflated, so treat that material as unreliable.