Robert M. Gillam

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

Let me dig deeper on this specific attorney's identity and background.

Let me verify whether this name corresponds to a real attorney or a data variant.

Professional Summary: Robert M. Gillam

Identification caveat. I was unable to verify this attorney's patent litigation practice from public sources. No attorney named "Robert M. Gillam" appears in firm materials for Gillam & Smith LLP, in State Bar of Texas listings surfaced by search, or in reported patent dockets. The name most closely matching this entry is Harry L. "Gil" Gillam, Jr., the Marshall, Texas name partner of Gillam & Smith, whose practice does include patent litigation. Because the tracked case list contains only a single, untitled appearance (plaintiff side, Gillam & Smith, local counsel/co-counsel) with no case name, docket number, technology area, or outcome, I cannot characterize a specialty, side preference, or win record for "Robert M. Gillam" specifically. The name should be treated as unconfirmed pending verification against bar records or the firm directly; anything below describes the firm, not this individual, except where noted.

Firm context. Gillam & Smith LLP is a small litigation boutique with offices in Marshall and Tyler, Texas — both inside the Eastern District of Texas, the venue that drove its patent work. Korean legal-press reporting (Law Times, June 2024) described the firm as having fewer than five attorneys and identified it as one of the most frequently retained firms by Samsung and LG in EDTX patent suits, almost entirely in a local counsel role supporting out-of-district lead counsel. Lex Machina's 2021 law firm activity report ranked Gillam & Smith third nationally among firms representing patent defendants (2018–2020), with 297 cases across nine districts. The firm's publicly identified patent-side lawyers are Gil Gillam and Melissa R. Smith, both of whom have appeared as additional/local counsel in numerous EDTX matters (e.g., Netlist v. Samsung, Headwater Research v. Samsung, Blue Spike v. Texas Instruments, Mojo Mobility v. Samsung).

Side preference and notable results. At the firm level the dominant posture is defense-side local counsel for operating companies — Samsung, LG, Apple, Clear Channel, and Rhodium among them — with secondary plaintiff-side patent work (e.g., representing Wave Neuroscience as plaintiff in W.D. Tex.). The single tracked "plaintiff side" appearance for this attorney is directionally consistent with that minority plaintiff-side practice but is not independently verifiable. Verifiable notable outcomes are attributable to other firm attorneys: Gillam & Smith served as local counsel to WilmerHale in the 2022 USAA v. PNC Bank mobile-deposit trial in Marshall, where the jury awarded $4.3 million against an $80.5 million demand and declined to find willfulness; and Gil Gillam obtained a $55 million verdict in MaximiCER v. Pepsi (2003), reported at the time as the largest patent verdict of its kind in Marshall federal court. Neither should be credited to "Robert M. Gillam."

PTAB/IPR and bar/education. No IPR, PGR, or CBM filings name this attorney. Firm attorneys do appear in PTAB matters alongside national counsel (for example, in LG Electronics v. Pantech, IPR2023-01268, and in Tesla-related IPR2025-01034 filings), but that is a firm-level observation only. Bar admissions, education, and prior firm history for "Robert M. Gillam" are not reliably sourced and are therefore omitted.