Pratik Kumar Raj Ghosh

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

Let me dig into the tracked Slingshot/Canon litigation and related PTAB proceedings.

Let me verify a few remaining details — the district court case posture, prior firm, and other tracked matters.

Pratik K. Raj Ghosh — MoloLamken LLP (New York)

Specialty / focus. Mr. Raj Ghosh is a general commercial litigator whose practice the firm describes as spanning intellectual property, bankruptcy and restructuring, and other complex business disputes, with experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. His tracked patent work is concentrated in a single technology field — inkjet printing hardware. The Slingshot/Canon matters involve printhead and heater-chip technology: high-resolution printheads, semiconductor substrates for micro-fluid ejection devices, bondpad/trace layouts, and on-chip temperature sensing and heater-array thermal control. This is electrical/mechanical device and semiconductor-fabrication art, not Wi-Fi/standards, pharma, or software. His other documented appearances (e.g., the NCAA name-image-likeness objectors, and an antitrust matter) are not patent cases, so his publicly verifiable patent docket is narrow in scope even though it is deep in this one dispute.

Side preference. The tracked data shows a nominal 3–3 plaintiff/defendant split, but all six appearances arise from the same Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon v. Slingshot dispute, and the substance is clearer than the labels: on the merits he has appeared for Slingshot Printing, the patent-holder/licensing entity, as appellant in the Federal Circuit appeals from the PTAB's adverse final written decisions. The "defendant" designations in the tracked list correspond to Canon's IPR-side captions and mirrored case names rather than to him defending an operating company on infringement. In short, his verifiable patent advocacy has been on the patent-owner/NPE side in a validity fight, not on the operating-company defense side.

Firm context and notable cases. He is at MoloLamken LLP in New York (430 Park Avenue), having joined from Kirkland & Ellis and after clerking for the Hon. Philip M. Halpern (S.D.N.Y.). MoloLamken served as Slingshot's appellate counsel alongside Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery. The results were adverse to his client: in a series of nonprecedential Federal Circuit decisions, the court affirmed PTAB obviousness holdings invalidating asserted claims of Slingshot's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,152,951 (No. 24-2127, July 21, 2026), 7,290,864, 7,484,823 and 7,594,708 (Nos. 25-1032/25-1033, July 16, 2026), and 7,195,341 (No. 24-1956, April 23, 2026), plus a Rule 36 affirmance in No. 24-2132 (May 7, 2026). The parallel EDNY infringement suits (Slingshot I, 22-cv-00123, and Slingshot II, 22-cv-01852) were stayed pending the IPRs, so no district court damages outcome is on record.

PTAB / IPR experience. His patent work is essentially IPR-appellate: he briefed and argued (as named counsel of record) appeals from IPR final written decisions, and the underlying proceedings (e.g., IPR2023-00312, IPR2023-00313) were Canon-initiated IPRs. He is not a registered patent practitioner on the record here, and his Federal Circuit pro hac vice/counsel appearances are as a litigator rather than as a prosecutor.

Bar / education. Vanderbilt University Law School (J.D.); University of Michigan (B.S.); admitted in New York and Illinois, and before the Federal Circuit, S.D.N.Y., E.D.N.Y., and N.D. Ill.

Caveats: The structured case list contains duplicated and mirrored caption entries, so the plaintiff/defendant counts should be read as reflecting one underlying dispute rather than six independent matters. One tracked appearance is recorded as "of counsel" and one case is untitled; the firm website currently lists him as an associate, so that role designation should be confirmed. No PTO patent-bar registration or additional patent matters were found in the sources reviewed.