Rayiner I. Hashem

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

Let me dig deeper into specific case outcomes and his career history.

Let me check the remaining case outcomes and any earlier firm history.

Rayiner I. Hashem — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus. Hashem's practice centers on patent and appellate litigation, with a technical emphasis on wireless and cellular standards, consumer electronics/hardware components, and software. MoloLamken's own descriptions of his matters list FRAND/standard-essential patent licensing work for cellular wireless clients (the Ericsson–TCL and HTC–Ericsson disputes), secure-communications technology (VirnetX), DVR/set-top technology (Comcast), software (Oracle v. Google amicus), and mechanical/electrical hardware — most recently inkjet printhead and heater-chip patents in the Canon–Slingshot Printing litigation. His background is consistent with this: a B.S. in aerospace engineering from Georgia Tech and prior work as a software engineer at a wireless technology R&D company. Client work also spans outside pure patent litigation, including FCC/net-neutrality appeals and energy-market regulatory appeals, which reflect his broader appellate practice rather than a patent specialty.

Side preference. His tracked appearances are 4 defendant-side and 2 plaintiff-side, and the public record is genuinely mixed rather than one-directional. A significant share of his appellate work has been for operating companies defending or challenging patent assertions (Ericsson, TCL, Comcast, HTC), frequently on the defense side of SEP/FRAND disputes. At the same time, the cases driving his recent Federal Circuit docket were patent-owner-side appeals for Slingshot Printing LLC, a patent-holding licensing entity, and he argued as lead appellate counsel for plaintiff-appellant Q Technologies against Walmart. He should be characterized as a both-sides appellate patent litigator rather than a dedicated defense or NPE-side specialist.

Firm context. Hashem is a partner at MoloLamken LLP (Washington, D.C. office), a national litigation boutique; the firm announced his elevation to partner effective February 1, 2021. Authoritative case data and public profiles show only MoloLamken — a 2018 bylined article identifies him as a MoloLamken associate — and no prior law firm is reliably reported in professional sources. He clerked for Judge Dolores K. Sloviter of the Third Circuit and, during law school, for FCC Commissioner Meredith A. Baker.

Notable matters and outcomes. His highest-profile tracked matters are adverse results and defense wins rather than plaintiff victories. In the Canon–Slingshot Printing inkjet printhead dispute, he represented patent holder Slingshot in appeals from multiple PTAB inter partes reviews; the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's obviousness holdings in every instance (e.g., Nos. 24-1956, Apr. 23, 2026; 24-2132, Rule 36 judgment May 7, 2026; 24-2127, July 21, 2026; 25-1032/25-1033, July 16, 2026), leaving all challenged claims unpatentable. In Q Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc., No. 24-1667 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2026), he argued for the patent owner and the court affirmed summary judgment of § 101 ineligibility. On the favorable side, he was on the MoloLamken team in TCL Communications Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 943 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2019), which vacated the district court's FRAND determination and held his client Ericsson was entitled to a jury trial on the retrospective "release payment" term, and he is listed in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 748 F. App'x 332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) defending the infringement judgment. He also briefed amicus positions in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017), and Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 886 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

PTAB / IPR experience. Yes — substantial and recurring. The bulk of his tracked Federal Circuit docket consists of appeals from IPR final written decisions (the Canon–Slingshot printhead IPRs), and his bio lists amicus work in Conversant Wireless Licensing v. Apple addressing IPR disclosure obligations in standard-setting organizations. He is a frequent appellant's counsel in PTAB-originating appeals.

Bar / education. Admitted in New York, Illinois, and the District of Columbia, and to the Seventh Circuit (Federal Circuit admission May 30, 2017); J.D., magna cum laude, Northwestern University School of Law (2012); B.S., Georgia Institute of Technology.