Nikolas Bohl

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

Let me verify the specific tracked case and disambiguate.

Let me confirm the firm history and education details.

Note on name and identity. The tracked appearance is docketed as "Nikolas Bohl"; the attorney's full name is Nickolas J. Bohl (Nickolas Arlauckas Bohl), WSBA #48978 / California Bar #245943 / N.Y. registration #5155882. The docket and web records use both spellings for the same person. All statements below are limited to professional matters of record.

Specialty and focus. The single tracked appearance is pro hac vice counsel for plaintiff Intellectual Ventures II LLC in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01106 (N.D. Ala.), a financial-services case asserting patents on encryption/payment-card data security (U.S. Pat. 5,745,574 and related). Web-sourced docket records show a broader electronics/computer-software patent practice: he appeared in Intellectual Ventures v. Motorola Mobility (D. Del. 11-cv-908), the IV bank patent campaign (Commerce Bancshares, Bank of America, Capital One), Nagravision SA v. NFL Enterprises (E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00396), and Wistron Corp. v. Samsung Electronics (N.D. Cal. 3:07-cv-04748). Orrick's profile states he "leveraged his computer science background" and litigated "high stakes patent litigation on behalf of Fortune 500 companies" for over a decade.

Side preference. The tracked data shows 1 plaintiff-side appearance and 0 defendant-side, so the database reflects patent-owner/plaintiff work only. The wider record is mixed: he represented Samsung as defendant/counter-plaintiff in the Wistron matter, but most of his later patent work was for patent owners — repeatedly as pro hac vice counsel for Intellectual Ventures entities and for Nagravision as plaintiff. Practically, his recent patent-side experience leans toward representing large patent portfolio owners rather than defending operating companies.

Firm context. Docket filings place him at DLA Piper US LLP (East Palo Alto/Menlo Park) from at least 2008 through roughly 2017, including years on the team of Mark Fowler, Elizabeth Day, and Sal Lim. He then appears among Intellectual Ventures litigation counsel (the Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson group, consistent with the team's move from DLA Piper; I could not independently verify his firm of record for that period). He subsequently spent roughly a decade in government service as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (W.D. Wash.) and Washington State Assistant Attorney General, handling False Claims Act and civil fraud matters, and he now appears as Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP in Seattle, on the regulatory/enforcement and cybersecurity teams (where he has appeared for the University of Washington Board of Regents and the United States). His current role is regulatory/cybersecurity, not patent litigation.

Notable cases and PTAB. His most prominent verifiable patent result is Intellectual Ventures I & II v. Motorola Mobility (D. Del., Judge Sue L. Robinson), which went to a plaintiff's verdict on March 25, 2015 (redacted verdict; damages deferred) with Bohl listed among plaintiff's counsel. He was also among pro hac vice counsel in IV II v. Commerce Bancshares (W.D. Mo.), where the court denied IV's fee motion and awarded most costs to Commerce in 2017, and he entered an appearance as appellee's counsel in IV II v. JPMorgan Chase, Fed. Cir. No. 2014-1724. On PTAB/IPR: the IV patents at issue were heavily challenged (e.g., Compass Bank v. IV II, IPR2014-00719/-00722/-00724), but the record shows IV's PTAB counsel of record was Knobbe Martens, and I found no record of Bohl personally appearing in an IPR/PGR, so his IPR practice is not confirmed.

Bar/education. Admitted in Washington and California; his New York registration was suspended in September 2022 for registration non-compliance and reinstated November 2025. Education is not reliably sourced and is omitted.