Richard C. Gilmore

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

Let me verify the tracked case and check for litigation/IPR history.

Let me dig into his specific role in the Vivint matter and any PTAB appearances.

Richard C. Gilmore — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus areas. Gilmore is a partner at Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel (Park City, Utah), where his practice is described by the firm and Chambers USA as centered on patent and trademark prosecution, portfolio management, and client counseling rather than first-chair litigation. His technical background is mechanical engineering (B.S., University of Utah, 1990), and Chambers/IAM note he handles reexamination and post-issuance matters as well as utility and design patents. The one tracked litigation matter is in the smart-home/consumer-electronics space — video doorbell, IP camera, and home-automation hardware — which aligns with the firm's broader hardware-and-security-device docket rather than software standards (e.g., Wi-Fi SEP) or life sciences work.

Side preference. The tracked data shows a single appearance, all on the plaintiff side (1 plaintiff / 0 defendant), in Vivint Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLC. That appearance is a declaratory-judgment posture: Vivint sued a patent-holding entity, consistent with the firm's pattern of representing operating companies against NPEs. There is no tracked record of Gilmore prosecuting claims for NPEs/PAEs, and his public practice description is client-side portfolio and prosecution work. A one-case sample is too thin to state a genuine "preference," so this should be read as a snapshot rather than an established pattern.

Firm context and notable matter. Gilmore's current firm (variously styled Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel) has included him in its name for years; he is identified as a founding-era name partner in the Utah/California IP boutique. The tracked matter, Vivint Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLC (No. 8:22-cv-00034, C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 7, 2022), sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement of several SB IP Holdings patents (including U.S. Patents 8,139,098; 8,144,183; 8,144,184; 8,154,581; and 8,164,614) covering video-doorbell and remote-monitoring technology, plus an inequitable-conduct count. The court granted SB IP Holdings' motion to dismiss and transferred the case to the Eastern District of Texas (No. 4:22-cv-00648), where the related infringement action SB IP Holdings, LLC v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. was already pending. That broader dispute resolved through settlement: the Federal Circuit dismissed a set of consolidated appeals from related PTAB proceedings by joint stipulation on July 10, 2025 (Nos. 24-1271 et al.). I could not verify from public sources that Gilmore personally argued or tried any phase of this matter; his tracked involvement may be as counsel of record rather than trial counsel, and I have not found a reported verdict, judgment, or appellate opinion crediting him individually.

PTAB/IPR experience. The Vivint dispute generated substantial PTAB activity (inter partes reviews including IPR2022-00810 through -00814, -01352, -01364, -01365, and -01449), and Maschoff Brennan served as Vivint's counsel in some of that work. However, the PTAB filings I can verify name R. Parrish Freeman and Eric L. Maschoff as Vivint's lead and back-up counsel, not Gilmore. I found no PTAB petition, patent-owner response, or oral argument attributable to Gilmore by name, so I cannot confirm that he personally appears regularly in IPR/PGR proceedings.

Bar / education. Reported admissions to the Utah State Bar and the State Bar of California, with a mechanical engineering degree (University of Utah, 1990) and J.D. from the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law (1993); Chambers USA Band 2 (Intellectual Property, Utah) and repeated IAM Patent 1000 listings for Utah. These come from firm/Chambers directory listings and a third-party directory, not from a primary bar record I verified directly, so treat the bar details as directory-sourced.