Robin K. Curtis

I'll research this attorney before drafting the summary.

Let me dig into the specific tracked cases and PTAB matters.

Let me verify a couple of key outcomes.

Robin K. Curtis — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus areas. Curtis is a partner at Bunsow De Mory LLP (Redwood City, CA; the firm was formerly Bunsow De Mory Smith & Allison), where her practice centers on complex technology litigation spanning patent infringement, trademark, and trade secret matters. Her firm biography describes work across cellular phone user interfaces and operating systems, CMOS image sensors, biometrics, encryption methodologies, mobile ad hoc networking (MANET), network traffic management, and wireless/telecommunications technologies involving WiFi, 802.11, and 3GPP standards. She has handled claim construction and evidentiary hearings, case-team and discovery management, fact and expert depositions, and IP due diligence in M&A. The tracked docket is consistent with that technical profile — rideshare/software and wireless-telecom patents rather than pharma or mechanical arts.

Side preference. Her tracked appearances skew plaintiff-side (3 plaintiff, 1 defendant), and the pattern is representation of patent owners and technology companies asserting patents rather than a defense-heavy book of business. She has appeared for licensing/patent-owner plaintiffs (Core Wireless Licensing, Carma Technology, Harris Corporation) and, separately, defended a patent owner in an IPR challenge (Unified Patents v. Carma Technology). She also has operating-company defense experience — for example, Bunsow De Mory represented AuthenTec as intervenor in Innovative Biometric Technology v. AuthenTec (fingerprint sensor software), where the plaintiff dismissed with prejudice after claim construction and summary judgment briefing and the court awarded fees to AuthenTec on an exceptional-case finding. On balance, she works both sides but is best characterized as a patent-owner/plaintiff-side litigator.

Notable cases. Her most prominent tracked matter is Carma Technology Corp. et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. (E.D. Tex., No. 2:25-cv-00029, filed Jan. 2025, before Judge Gilstrap), in which Carma asserts five patents covering rideshare/delivery matching, proxy messaging, freight chaining, and driver-tracking safety features; Uber has filed a parallel set of five IPRs (IPR2026-00305 through -00309). Her firm bio also lists Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc. (security, UI, and platform-architecture patents, resolved through a global patent license and settlement), Sherman & Associates v. ASM (dismissal of a licensee-brought infringement suit, affirmed on appeal), and trademark matters for Duckhorn Wine Company. Public records also show her on the Bunsow De Mory teams for Core Wireless Licensing v. Apple (E.D. Tex.) and Harris Corporation v. Huawei Device USA (E.D. Tex.). Most of these outcomes were settlements or procedural dismissals rather than reported verdicts.

PTAB / IPR experience. Docket records place her on matters with parallel PTAB proceedings, including the Carma/Unified Patents IPR and the Uber-vs.-Carma IPR family; however, the publicly filed powers of attorney in the Carma IPRs name other Bunsow De Mory attorneys (Wayne Helge, James Wilson) as lead and back-up counsel. Bunsow De Mory itself has a substantial PTAB practice — IAM reported the firm ranked second among firms defending patent owners at the PTAB in 2024 — but the available record does not establish that Curtis personally serves as first-chair PTAB counsel, so that point should be confirmed before being asserted.

Bar / education. Licensed in California since 2010 (Cal. Bar No. 271702); admitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California and Eastern District of Texas. J.D., Santa Clara University School of Law (cum laude, Order of the Coif); B.S., Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, UC Santa Barbara; former extern to Judge Susan Illston (N.D. Cal.).

Note: two of the four tracked appearances are listed without case names, so their subject matter could not be verified.