Nicholas Groombridge

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

Let me verify the specific tracked cases and notable outcomes.

Let me check the Unified Patents v. Kurin matter and additional notable Federal Circuit work.

Nicholas Groombridge — Patent Litigation Summary

Focus areas. Groombridge's practice is exclusively IP/patent litigation, with a technical footprint that spans life sciences (biotech, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, RNA/lipid-nanoparticle technology), software, semiconductors, wireless networking, consumer electronics, specialty chemicals, automotive parts, and financial services. The tracked case list is concentrated in medical-device/healthtech and aerial-imaging software: the Kurin matters concern a blood-sequestration device, and the Nearmap/Eagle View matters concern aerial-imagery roof-modeling patents. Publicly described client work (Amgen, Biogen, Genentech, Edwards Lifesciences, Novo Nordisk, Garmin, Google, Microsoft) confirms the life-sciences and high-tech mix.

Side preference. On the tracked set he skews defense: 0 plaintiff-side vs. 3 defendant-side appearances (lead trial counsel and of counsel for Nearmap in the Eagle View disputes, and counsel for Kurin). That said, his broader career is genuinely two-sided — he has represented patent owners/plaintiffs in major affirmatives, including Edwards Lifesciences as plaintiff in the Medtronic CoreValve case and Amgen in its antibody patent litigation — so the tracked counts are best read as a small sample rather than a defined NPE/PAE practice. He does not appear to work for NPEs as a business model.

Firm context. He is a founding partner (Nov. 2022) of the patent-litigation boutique Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP (New York, Washington D.C., Tokyo). Before that he was a partner in the Litigation Department at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (joined 2011), and earlier co-chaired the patent-litigation practice at Weil, Gotshal & Manges. He is in private practice, not in-house.

Notable cases / outcomes. Most prominent is Edwards Lifesciences v. Medtronic CoreValve (D. Del.), where he was lead plaintiffs' trial counsel and the jury returned a willful-infringement verdict of roughly $393.6M in Jan. 2014 (ranked among the NLJ's top verdicts of 2014); related matters reportedly settled for payments to Edwards totaling about $1.1B. He also acted for Novo Nordisk in the Wegovy/Ozempic/Rybelsus patent disputes, and his firm's bio credits work on RNA vaccine (Acuitas lipid-nanoparticle) and cancer-treatment patents. In the tracked Nearmap/Eagle View dispute, he represents Nearmap; the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB obviousness findings against Eagle View's roof-modeling claims after a 2024 Director-review remand of the Board's nonobviousness ruling in the '961 IPR.

PTAB / IPR experience. Yes — the firm has been active before the PTAB since its 2012 inception (filing petitions on day one) and represents both petitioners and patent owners in IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs. Groombridge's tracked Kurin matter (Unified Patents v. Kurin) and the Nearmap-side IPRs (e.g., IPR2022-01009) are PTAB proceedings; the firm's PTAB work also includes Amgen, Genentech, and Twitter/BlackBerry matters.

Bar / education. LL.B., University of London (1981); admitted in New York (practicing there since 1989), before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and multiple federal district courts; past president of the Federal Circuit Bar Association; has taught patent-litigation courses at Columbia and NYU law schools.

Note: the three tracked appearances are a limited slice of a roughly 35-year career (reported lead counsel in 150+ district-court patent cases and 30+ Federal Circuit arguments), so the counts should not be read as a complete picture of his practice.