Orion Armon

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

Let me verify the tracked cases and a few specifics.

Let me clarify which side Cooley represented in the DISH matter and confirm bar/education details.

Orion Armon — Cooley LLP (partner, Colorado/Denver office)

Specialty / focus. Armon's practice spans two poles. Much of his career has involved software and electronics — earlier bios list SaaS, database architectures, ERP systems, malware-detection and encryption software, streaming-television encryption, optical transceivers, CCFL inverter controllers and interactive voice-response systems — and the tracked dockets fit that profile: DISH's adaptive-bitrate video-streaming patents and the WAG Acquisition streaming-media campaign against Google and other streamers. Cooley's and Chambers' current descriptions, however, emphasize high-stakes life sciences/medtech work: medical devices and diagnostics, including Alzheimer's assays, ophthalmological stents, occlusion catheters, blood glucose monitors, lumbar-stenosis surgical kits, surgical robotics, intraocular lenses, hydrogel sealants, and monoclonal antibodies/biosimilars.

Side preference. All five tracked appearances are for defendants — Google in the WAG Acquisition matters and the defendant group in DISH Technologies LLC v. WebGroup Czech Republic A.S. (D. Utah) — so his docket is defense-leaning, consistent with a practice built around operating companies. He is not an NPE/PAE specialist, though he is not strictly a one-way player: firm-published representative matters include patent-owner plaintiff work for Enfish (lead counsel), Sight Sciences (lead trial counsel), Certus, Prolacta and HyperBranch, and patent-owner PTAB work for Blackhawk Network and Quanterix.

Firm context, bar, education. Cooley since 2003, resident in the firm's Colorado office; he joined directly from law school and no prior firm appears in the sources reviewed. Before law school he was a systems-implementation consultant at Accenture (1997–2000). He is a registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 65,421), admitted in Colorado, with a J.D. with honors from the University of Texas School of Law (2003).

Notable cases and PTAB/IPR. His signature result is Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016), where he argued the appeal that produced 822 F.3d 1327 — a leading and frequently cited §101 decision (reversing the district court's abstract-idea invalidity ruling). As lead trial counsel to Sight Sciences in Sight Sciences, Inc. v. Alcon Inc. (D. Del.), he obtained a complete jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity with roughly $5.5M in lost profits plus $28.5M in royalties; he also defeated Alexion's preliminary-injunction motion for Samsung Bioepis in the eculizumab biosimilar dispute. On the tracked dockets he was appellate counsel for Google in the WAG Acquisition appeals, which the Federal Circuit affirmed in consolidated Rule 36 judgments in March 2026; he argued and lost the PGR appeal in Blackhawk Network, Inc. v. InComm (Fed. Cir. 2023), which affirmed an obviousness holding. PTAB work is a core part of the practice — the firm's figures list 47 PTAB proceedings (22 as lead counsel), 31 Federal Circuit appeals (24 as lead) and 107 district court patent cases (23 as lead), and recent filings show him as lead counsel for Quanterix in IPR2025-01060. He co-created and co-edits Cooley's PTAB Digest. (The case-count statistics are firm-provided marketing figures, not independently verified.)