Marguerite M. Sullivan

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Specialty / focus areas. In the tracked record, Sullivan's patent work is narrow: both appearances are for Capital One in the Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One dispute, which involved software and business-method patents in the financial-services sector (XML document management, user-interface/mobile data access, database searching, online banking and budgeting patents). Notably, her own published practice profile does not describe her as a patent litigator — Latham's bio, Chambers, Legal 500, and Benchmark all characterize her practice as antitrust and competition litigation (mergers, cartel investigations, class actions), and her newsworthy results are merger challenges, not patent trials. The IV matters were patent infringement suits with Capital One antitrust counterclaims filed against IV, so her involvement appears to sit at the intersection of patent and antitrust litigation rather than in standalone patent prosecution or patent-trial practice. No Wi-Fi/standards, life-sciences, or mechanical patent work surfaced in any source.

Side preference. The tracked data shows defensive work only: 0 plaintiff-side and 2 defendant-side appearances, consistent with a practice built on representing large corporate defendants. There is no evidence of plaintiff-side or NPE/PAE-side advocacy.

Firm context. Both tracked appearances are attributed to Latham & Watkins, where she is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office. Court filings place her at Latham from at least 2012 through 2021, and no prior law firm or in-house role could be verified in the sources reviewed. She has been recognized by Benchmark Litigation, Chambers USA, Legal 500, and Who's Who Legal, all for competition/antitrust work.

Notable cases, PTAB, and credentials. The prominent tracked matter is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp. On the infringement claims, Capital One prevailed: the asserted patents were held ineligible under § 101 and the Federal Circuit affirmed, 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017), also affirming that IV was collaterally estopped as to the '084 patent. The antitrust counterclaims she would most plausibly have been associated with went the other way — the district court granted IV summary judgment on Noerr-Pennington immunity and issue preclusion grounds, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in a per curiam decision on December 11, 2019. Her specific contribution to either matter is not documented in the public sources I found; Latham's public role in the appeals is attributed in press coverage to other Latham lawyers (Matthew J. Moore and J. Scott Ballenger). I found no IPR/PGR filings listing her. Note also that the two tracked entries appear to be aspects of one underlying client dispute rather than two unrelated representations. Bar admissions: District of Columbia and Virginia; JD, Northwestern University School of Law (2000); BA, Bowdoin College (1995) — per her firm profile.