Patrick David Clark

I'll research this attorney's background and verify the tracked case.

Patrick David Clark — patent litigation practice summary

Specialty / focus. Clark is a Dallas-based patent litigator whose tracked work centers on computer and software technologies. His single tracked appearance is Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. SAP America, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., No. 2:24-cv-00021-JRG, before Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap), an enterprise-software/computer-architecture dispute in which Valtrus and Key Patent Innovations — patent licensing entities that acquired patents originating with Hewlett-Packard/HPE — asserted a portfolio of database, cache/multiprocessor, and high-availability patents against SAP. He is also listed on the corresponding PTAB filings concerning those patents, which involve multiprocessor cache design, dynamic cache allocation, and database high-availability technology. His published firm bio describes a general complex-patent-litigation practice rather than a single technical niche, and his pre-law technical background is in aircraft engines (technical contracts at Rolls-Royce North America), not electrical engineering or software.

Side preference. The tracked data is one case, on the defense side: 0 plaintiff / 1 defendant. That is consistent with the public record of his work — his most visible trial role was on the Winston team that defended U.S. Well Services LLC against Halliburton Energy Services' electric-fracking patent claims in Waco, and his PTAB filings are on behalf of SAP as petitioner. Nothing in the searchable record shows him prosecuting claims for NPEs or PAEs. The one-case sample is too small to characterize him as a systematic defense specialist, but there is no verified plaintiff-side or NPE-side work.

Firm context. His tracked appearance is with Winston & Strawn LLP (Dallas office, 2121 N. Pearl Street), where his bio describes him as a patent attorney in the firm's litigation/IP practice. His bio is now also published on the Winston Taylor LLP site, which describes a combination effective June 1, 2026 involving the legacy Winston & Strawn Texas practice; I could not independently verify the terms of that combination beyond the firm's own materials, and the PTAB and district court filings of record remain under Winston & Strawn. Before private practice he served as a judicial law clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for Judges Rodney Gilstrap, Thad Heartfield, and Keith Giblin, and externed for Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson in the S.D. Ind.

Notable matters and PTAB experience. His most concrete documented result is U.S. Well Services LLC v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., where the Winston team won a Waco jury defense verdict — no infringement of any of the three asserted patents, with two found invalid as obvious — recognized in The Am Law Litigation Daily's "Litigator of the Week" column (September 2023); Clark is identified as an associate on that team. In the Valtrus/SAP matter he is listed as back-up counsel (appearing pro hac vice; registered practitioners served as lead counsel) on SAP's IPR petitions, including IPR2025-00418 on U.S. Patent No. 6,871,264 and the related IPR2025-00414–00420 set. All of those petitions were denied institution by the Director on discretionary-denial grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (settled expectations and parallel-litigation timing), so no instituted trial resulted. Separately, the Federal Circuit denied SAP's mandamus petition seeking intra-district transfer to the Sherman Division (In re SAP America, Inc., No. 25-118 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2025)); Clark is not listed among counsel on that petition. I could not verify a public verdict, settlement, or dismissal in the underlying district court case, which had a September 2025 trial setting.

Bar / education. Bar admission: Texas. J.D., summa cum laude, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law (2020); B.A., cum laude, Butler University (2017). His PTAB filings list him as appearing pro hac vice rather than as a registered USPTO practitioner.

Caveats: the tracked appearance count (one case) is very small, so the side-preference and technology-area observations above rest on a limited record supplemented by firm bios and PTAB filings; any unverified points are flagged as such.