Ravi Ranganath

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

Let me verify education, bar admission, prior firm history, and PTAB/IPR experience.

Let me check PTAB/IPR involvement and the remaining tracked cases.

Ravi Ranganath — Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View, CA)

Focus. Ranganath's practice centers on patent and licensing disputes for high-technology clients. Fenwick's own description lists his technical areas as cloud computing, natural language processing, speech recognition, video decoding (including video-on-demand), e-commerce, wireless networking/mesh technology, and software and hardware design. His docket confirms that mix: Amazon's Alexa/NLP and voice-search suits, Prime Video § 101 challenges, wireless mesh and Wi-Fi-adjacent claims, internet-advertising and streaming patents, and e-commerce/cloud infrastructure. He also has handled ITC Section 337 investigations. Note that the tracked case list, while consistent with this, is a small sample (5 appearances), so technology-area generalizations should be treated as directional rather than exhaustive.

Side preference. Ranganath is a defense-side patent litigator. All five tracked appearances are on the defendant side (0 plaintiff), largely for Amazon.com and its subsidiaries (AWS, Audible, Amazon Digital Services), and also for Meta, Zillow, AutoX and Molekule. He is not known as NPE/PAE-side counsel; his docket is overwhelmingly defending operating companies against patent assertions by NPEs and competitors. The tracked roles range from lead counsel (Athena Security, LLP v. Amazon.com, W.D. Tex.) to trial counsel, of counsel, out-of-state counsel and case attorney, reflecting that he frequently contributes to large joint defense teams rather than appearing alone.

Notable matters. Reported results include defense verdicts or case-ending rulings in TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon (full defense verdict, D. Del., Amazon Music/Audible), TrackThings LLC v. Amazon (jury found no infringement of wireless mesh patents, W.D. Tex., Oct. 2024), Freshub v. Amazon (defense verdict against a $246M damages demand, W.D. Tex.), Innovation Sciences v. Amazon (defense verdict including a rare jury § 101 ineligibility finding), and LendingTree v. Zillow (defense verdict affirmed by the Federal Circuit, which also held the claims patent-ineligible on cross-appeal). He was on the team that invalidated five Broadband iTV video-on-demand patents under § 101, affirmed by the Federal Circuit on Sept. 3, 2024 (Broadband iTV v. Amazon, No. 23-1107). In the PersonalWeb MDL (N.D. Cal.) he drafted summary judgment briefing that produced a precedential Federal Circuit decision on claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine and supported a § 285 attorneys' fees award. Balanced against these, he was named counsel on two adverse Amazon jury verdicts reported by Reuters — the ~$122M AlmondNet verdict and the $46.7M VB Assets/VoiceBox verdict — both of which are on appeal or subject to post-trial proceedings. His years on this team are reflected in Patexia's 2026 Patent Litigation Report, which individually ranked him among Fenwick's ranked litigators.

PTAB/IPR. His publicly documented PTAB-adjacent work is real but secondary: he has appeared on Federal Circuit filings arising from IPR proceedings (e.g., Amazon's unopposed motion to intervene in appeals stemming from IPR2019-01091), and the PersonalWeb patents were the subject of prior IPRs. Third-party analytics sites show him with PTAB activity, but I found no verified record of him as lead counsel on a substantial number of IPR/PGR petitions; treat any claim of a primary IPR practice as unconfirmed.

Bar and education. Admitted to the State Bar of California on December 3, 2010 (Bar No. 272981); graduate of UC College of the Law, San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings), 2010. He served as a law clerk to the Hon. Jon S. Tigar, N.D. Cal., in 2017. Firm history appears to be Fenwick & West throughout his litigation career; no prior firm was found.