Nikhil Krishnan

I'll research this attorney before drafting the summary.

Let me verify case outcomes and additional matters.

Let me check the other tracked/federal matters and any prior firm history.

Nikhil R. Krishnan — patent litigation summary

Focus areas. Krishnan is an IP litigator at Kirkland & Ellis whose practice covers patent and trade secret litigation in federal district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB, per his Kirkland bio. He holds an EE/CS technical background, and the firm lists among his technology experience semiconductor chip design, networking devices, online advertising, e-commerce, enterprise software, video conferencing, mechanical devices (garage door operators), and biopharmaceutical production, plus data-breach contract disputes. The one tracked case with identifiable subject matter, Staton Techiya v. Samsung, involved consumer audio/voice-recognition hardware (Galaxy Buds and Bixby-related products) — i.e., electronics rather than pharma or standard-essential licensing work.

Side preference. On the authoritative case list he is defense-side in both of his two tracked appearances (0 plaintiff / 2 defendant), both for Kirkland. Web-verifiable dockets are consistent: he has appeared for Samsung (E.D. Tex.), for Intel as counterclaimant in MOSAID Technologies v. Intel (D. Or., filed 2026, now stayed pending ex parte reexamination), and for PayPal in the PersonalWeb MDL (N.D. Cal., Kirkland withdrew in 2020). He also acts as petitioning counsel in IPRs. There is no evidence in the tracked or searched record of plaintiff-side or NPE/PAE representation.

Firm context. Kirkland & Ellis throughout the period covered by the tracked data; his listed office is Chicago (300 N. LaSalle / 333 W. Wolf Point Plaza), with PTAB filings also listing the firm's Washington, D.C. address. He was registered with the USPTO as a patent agent in October 2011, before his 2014 J.D., which suggests earlier patent-agent/prosecution work, but no prior employer or firm is verifiable from the sources reviewed, so none is asserted here.

Notable matters and outcomes. The most prominent is Staton Techiya, LLC v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex. No. 2:21-cv-00413, consolidated with 2:22-cv-00053), where Krishnan appeared at the January 2023 Markman hearing and on the trial team. Judge Gilstrap found the asserted patent claims unenforceable under the unclean-hands doctrine (findings issued May 9, 2024; final judgment June 21, 2024 dismissing the case with prejudice), based on former Samsung in-house attorneys' use of privileged Samsung materials to build the suit — a frequently cited defense-side win. Samsung was later awarded $275,666.59 in taxable costs; press reporting indicates Samsung sought roughly $25–26 million in fees and costs, and the fee ruling was still pending in the sources reviewed. Separately, Kirkland filed and prosecuted IPRs against the Techiya patents (e.g., IPR2022-01106 and later petitions on the '493 and '643 patents, with statutory estoppel stipulations), and some asserted claims were cancelled. Note: one of the two tracked appearances appears in the source data only as an "Untitled case" (defendant, Kirkland), so it cannot be characterized on this record.

PTAB/IPR. Yes — he is not solely a district-court lawyer. He has appeared as counsel on Samsung's Techiya-related IPR petitions and as petitioner's counsel in Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr, Inc. (IPR2024-01307), including at the Board hearing in January 2026. His Kirkland bio expressly lists PTAB work.

Bar and education. Admitted in California (2014) and Illinois (2016); registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 68,879); admitted in N.D. Cal. and S.D. Cal. J.D., University of Chicago Law School, 2014 (with honors); B.S., Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, UC Berkeley, 2009. Named to Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch (Litigation – IP; Litigation – Patent), 2026.