Randall Garteiser

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Randall T. Garteiser — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus and side of the docket. Garteiser's tracked appearances are 5 of 5 on the plaintiff side, all as lead counsel, and the broader public docket confirms this is a plaintiff-side patent assertion practice rather than a defense practice. Technology areas cluster around software, electronics, and wireless/data-transfer: Cellspin Soft's Bluetooth "automatic multimedia upload" patents asserted against wearables and camera makers; the Piney Woods Mobility location-sharing patents asserted against AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Samsung (E.D. Tex., filed February 2026); and software/media assertions for clients such as Symbology Innovations, Display Technologies, and Pay As You Go. The firm's own 2013 announcement also lists oil and gas and life sciences experience, and he does some trademark work alongside the IP litigation. The structured list is a small slice of a much larger filing history.

Client profile. The recurring client type is the patent holder rather than the operating company — inventor-founded companies (Cellspin Soft), patent-holding/assertion entities, and the Rothschild-affiliated Patent Asset Management family of entities. Cellspin Soft has been described as a non-practicing entity in a defendant's SEC disclosure. The most prominent tracked matters are the Cellspin Soft cases: Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Senseonics Holdings, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-263) and the earlier wearables campaign against Fitbit, Nike, Under Armour, Fossil, Garmin, and Nikon. That campaign produced a genuine win and a genuine loss worth noting: Garteiser's team defeated the § 101 ineligibility challenge both at summary judgment in 2021 and on the earlier appeal (Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019)), but the district court ultimately granted summary judgment of noninfringement across all defendants in June 2022, which the Federal Circuit affirmed on November 1, 2024 (nonprecedential), dismissing the Nikon appeal and taxing costs against Cellspin. The Senseonics case was stayed in February 2025 pending IPRs and remains stayed.

Notable adverse ruling. In Symbology Innovations LLC v. Valve Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-419 and 2:23-cv-425), Judge Gilstrap found that Garteiser violated Rule 11 by filing amended complaints containing allegations he knew or should have known were unsupported, and sanctioned him with a public admonition plus 30 hours of legal ethics coursework and 30 hours of Federal Rules instruction. The court declined to impose monetary sanctions and did not hold his clients jointly liable, noting he took responsibility at the hearing and calling his admitted lack of diligence "inexcusable." This order is part of the public record and is material context for assessing the practice.

Firm, PTAB, and background. He is a founding partner of Garteiser Honea, PLLC (also branding as GH IP Law), based in Tyler, Texas, with a prior Bay Area footprint in Marin County; before founding what became Garteiser Honea he was a patent litigator at Quinn Emanuel's Silicon Valley office through roughly 2008. The firm appears regularly as patent-owner counsel in PTAB proceedings involving the Cellspin patent family — IPR2019-00127, -00131, -01107, and -01108 (Canon), IPR2024-00768 (TikTok), and IPR2025-00102 (LifeScan) — with Garteiser named among firm counsel. Education and admissions: J.D. with honors from the University of Texas School of Law; California State Bar No. 231821, appearing pro hac vice in Texas; earlier a Chevron engineer and a law clerk to Judge James Ware (N.D. Cal.), per his own deposition testimony. I did not find a reliable source confirming he is individually registered to practice before the USPTO, so that should not be assumed.