Neil A. Warren

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me dig into the tracked case and his PTAB activity.

Neil A. Warren — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Mr. Warren is a patent litigator at Fish & Richardson P.C., based in the firm's Silicon Valley (Redwood City) office, where he was elevated to principal effective January 1, 2018. His practice spans federal district court litigation and Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings, with client technologies described by the firm as semiconductors, integrated circuits, medical devices, and computer software. His undergraduate training supports that technical focus: he holds a B.S. in electrical engineering and computer science from U.C. Berkeley (2007, with honors, Tau Beta Pi and Eta Kappa Nu). The tracked docket data is consistent with this profile — his one indexed appearance is on the defense side, and public docket records also show him filing in the S.D. Cal. spinal-device dispute Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc. (3:12-cv-02738).

Side preference. The authoritative case list shows a 0-1 split — no plaintiff-side appearances, one defendant-side appearance — so on this record he is best characterized as a defense-side practitioner representing operating companies against patent assertions rather than a filer for NPEs/PAEs. The single tracked matter, Blackbird Tech LLC v. Fitbit, Inc., fits that pattern precisely: Blackbird was a well-known assertion entity, and Fitbit was the accused operating company. Note that the sample is one case; the plaintiff/defendant split should not be treated as a settled practice-wide statistic.

Notable case and outcome. In Blackbird Tech LLC v. Fitbit, Inc. (D. Del. C.A. No. 1:16-cv-00683, consolidated lead case), Blackbird asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212 against Fitbit's wearable activity trackers (Charge HR, Charge, Surge, Blaze, Alta, Flex). Fitbit petitioned for IPR, and the Board found claim 6 obvious over Kato in view of Amano while declining to invalidate claims 2 and 5 (IPR2017-02012, joined with Wahoo Fitness). The Federal Circuit affirmed the claim 6 holding in Blackbird Tech LLC v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 19-1879 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2020) (Taranto, J.). Per the IPR certificate, claims 1-6 of the '212 patent — including all claims asserted in the Delaware complaint — were cancelled as of May 26, 2020, effectively ending the asserted claims. One caveat: the district court docket I reviewed lists Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell and Blank Rome as Fitbit's Delaware counsel, and Fish & Richardson's PTAB filings for Fitbit identify other Fish attorneys as petitioner counsel, so Mr. Warren's specific role in the matter is taken from the tracked case list rather than independently confirmed in those public filings.

PTAB / IPR experience. He appears in PTAB proceedings, though the public record I found shows him in back-up rather than lead roles. One example: he is listed as additional back-up counsel (Reg. No. 63,582) in IPR2014-00034, an early AIA-era IPR. His firm-level post-grant platform is substantial — Fish & Richardson has repeatedly been among the most active firms at the PTAB — but I cannot verify that Mr. Warren personally appears regularly as lead counsel in IPR/PGR matters.

Bar and education. California State Bar No. 272770 and USPTO Registration No. 63,582 are reflected in public filings; J.D., U.C. Berkeley School of Law (2010); B.S., EECS, U.C. Berkeley (2007). No prior firm history outside Fish & Richardson was found, and I found no verified published verdicts, settlements, or Federal Circuit arguments attributable to him individually beyond the Blackbird appeal.