Richard A. Arrett

Richard A. Arrett — Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A. (Eden Prairie, MN)

Specialty / focus. Arrett's practice is centered on patent and trademark prosecution and counseling rather than a litigation-first docket. USPTO records and firm materials show a long-running registration practice spanning mechanical, medical-device, electrical/electronics, and software/utility-software subject matter; his client work has included catheter/balloon and endovascular device prosecution (e.g., Boston Scientific-family applications) and utility/energy software marks for Open Access Technology International (OATI). He has also written client-facing commentary on patent-eligibility developments, including Mayo v. Prometheus (2012). His patent litigation footprint is narrow: the only tracked case is a standard-essential-adjacent financial/security software matter, and his role there was local counsel.

Side preference. Based on the tracked data, Arrett appears on the plaintiff side once and the defendant side zero times — but this sample is too small to establish a genuine side preference. The single appearance, as local counsel for Intellectual Ventures II LLC, is consistent with a Minnesota-based IP firm used for local-counsel coverage in NPE suits, while his core practice is prosecution-oriented rather than NPE enforcement or operating-company defense.

Firm context. He is a shareholder and officer (listed as vice-president in firm profiles) at Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A., the Minnesota IP boutique where he has practiced since admission; there is no well-sourced record of prior firms or in-house roles. Co-founder Oliver F. Arrett practiced at the same firm, so attorneys named "Arrett" in older USPTO filings may be different individuals.

Notable cases. Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. U.S. Bancorp et al., No. 0:13-cv-02071-ADM (D. Minn., filed July 31, 2013) — part of IV's coordinated campaign against regional banks. The patents at issue (electronic-transaction security, digital-property access, intrusion detection, and cryptographic engine patents) were separately challenged in IPR/CBM proceedings; a patent-owner expert report in another matter states that asserted claims in the related IV II bank litigation were invalidated by the PTAB and that the Federal Circuit affirmed in December 2016. I could not verify an outcome specific to the U.S. Bancorp docket, and Arrett's own role is documented only as local counsel, so results should not be attributed to him.

PTAB / IPR. No IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings were found listing Arrett as lead or backup counsel; the IV-related petitions list other firms (Sterne Kessler, McAndrews, Knobbe) as patent-owner counsel. His firm has published IPR practice commentary, but the record does not show him as a regular PTAB advocate.

Bar / education. Admitted in Minnesota in 1987 (U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota; registered to practice before the USPTO); B.S., University of Minnesota (1984); J.D., Hamline University School of Law (1987), per Martindale and Avvo.