Rajkumar Vinnakota

I'll research this attorney before writing the summary.

Let me dig into the specific tracked cases and his case history.

Let me verify the tracked cases and his firm bio.

Rajkumar ("Kumar") Vinnakota — patent litigation practice summary

Focus areas. Vinnakota's patent work is concentrated in wireless standards and electronics, with a secondary practice in electro-optical/mechanical and life-sciences-adjacent matters. His most visible recent matters involve 5G/LTE standard-essential patents and 3GPP New Radio functionality — beam management and quasi co-location (QCL) assumptions, listen-before-talk (LBT) failure detection, DRX/wake-up-signal power saving, and buffer-status/scheduling-request prioritization (the Hannibal IP portfolio, formerly FG Innovation patents). Earlier matters include passive infrared optical gas-imaging technology (Leak Surveys v. FLIR), high-performance computing/computer architecture patents (Microsoft v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe franchises, covering the SRC-type portfolio), photo-booth software (Swinford v. 360Booth), and consumer camera technology (Contour IP filings). Cole Schotz's 2024 Texas Super Lawyers announcement lists him in the firm's Intellectual Property and Litigation departments and its Life Sciences industry group.

Side preference. The two tracked appearances are both defendant-side — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Hannibal IP LLC (matching Samsung's four PTAB petitions, IPR2025-01187 through -01190, filed July 2025 against four Hannibal 5G patents) and Unified Patents v. Hannibal IP LLC — i.e., Cole Schotz acting for patent owner Hannibal IP LLC as respondent. That two-case sample understates his range: he has acted for patent owners/plaintiffs (Leak Surveys in district court and IPR; Hannibal IP as plaintiff in Hannibal IP LLC v. Samsung Electronics, E.D. Tex. 4:25-cv-00200; the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe as patent owner in ten Microsoft IPRs) and for accused infringers (360Booth). Web sources indicate he has litigated on both sides rather than exclusively defending operating companies or exclusively prosecuting for NPEs.

Firm context. He is a member (partner) in Cole Schotz P.C.'s Dallas office, which he joined in October 2021 along with Sean Hsu from the now-shuttered Dallas IP boutique Janik Vinnakota LLP, which he co-founded with Glenn Janik (Reuters, Oct. 4, 2021). Before that he practiced at Skiermont Puckett LLP (Dallas), where he appeared in the FLIR IPRs, and at Nelson Bumgardner-related co-counsel teams on Federal Circuit appeals. He is not in-house.

Notable matters and outcomes. (1) Stephen M. Swinford v. 360Booth Inc. (M.D. Fla. 8:21-cv-02993) — defense win; after a two-day bench trial in August 2024, the court found three of four asserted patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct (order entered July 28, 2025); Cole Schotz's release identifies Vinnakota as the member who led the trial team. (2) Leak Surveys, Inc. v. FLIR Systems — he represented patent owner Leak Surveys in the N.D. Tex. case, the consolidated IPRs (IPR2014-00411/00434, IPR2015-00065), and the resulting Federal Circuit appeal, where the PTAB's invalidity findings were affirmed by Rule 36 (Jan. 10, 2017); he was also on the Supreme Court certiorari petition after en banc rehearing was denied — an unfavorable result for his client. (3) Microsoft v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (IPR2018-01601 to -01604 and related, 2018–19), where he served as counsel for the patent-owner tribe. (4) The Samsung–Hannibal IPRs terminated as settled on April 17, 2026, following institution decisions in December 2025 (Docket Alarm/PTAB records).

PTAB/IPR experience. He is a regular PTAB practitioner, not an occasional one: pro hac vice admissions and appearances in the FLIR IPRs (including presenting oral argument to the Board), the Microsoft/Saint Regis Mohawk IPR series, and the 2025–26 Samsung–Hannibal IPRs, plus patent-owner motion practice, depositions, and exhibit practice in those proceedings. In the two tracked matters he is docketed as an "attorney to be noticed" rather than lead counsel (Cole Schotz colleague Brian Carpenter is listed as respondent counsel of record).

Bar and education. Member of the State Bar of Texas (Bar No. 24042337); admitted to the Federal Circuit, Fifth Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court, and to district courts in Texas, Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska, and Colorado. J.D., University of Texas School of Law (2003), per his Super Lawyers profile and PTAB pro hac vice declarations.

Caveats: The Unified Patents v. Hannibal IP LLC caption appears in the tracked list only; I could not independently verify the docket, forum, or outcome, though the "defendant"/respondent designation is consistent with a Unified Patents-filed PTAB challenge to a Hannibal patent. Hannibal IP LLC is a Longhorn IP affiliate, and its litigation against Samsung, Apple, and Lenovo is publicly framed as 5G SEP licensing. Side characterizations drawn from Law360 case listings (which do not encode party role) should be treated as directional.