Scott Adam Penner

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me verify the tracked cases and any notable outcomes.

Scott Adam Penner — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus areas. Penner is a patent litigator with a computer-science background (Harvard, A.B. computer science), and his tracked matters skew toward software, computer hardware, networking, and medical devices. Representative technology areas in his case list include anti-malware/cybersecurity software (Finjan v. ESET), optical networking hardware (the Cambridge Industries / Applied Optoelectronics dispute over fiber-optic and transceiver technology), orthopedic/medical devices (Conformis v. Bodycad), aerospace systems (Jetaire Aerospace v. AerSale), and plastics/mechanical arts (Inpres v. Alltrista Plastics). Firm bios additionally emphasize AI and open-source software review, source-code analysis, portfolio management, trade secret protection, and due diligence. Note that one of his best-documented trial results — Workplace Technologies Research v. Project Management Institute (S.D. Cal.) — is a contract and trade-secrets dispute, not a patent case, so it should not be counted as patent trial experience.

Side preference. He works both sides rather than representing one side exclusively. The tracked appearances split 5 plaintiff / 3 defendant, but that lean is partly an artifact of the Cambridge Industries / Applied Optoelectronics dispute being docketed in both directions (he is listed for each party in parallel proceedings), which inflates both columns. Substantively, his most visible roles include defending a large operating company (ESET, as defendant/counter-plaintiff against Finjan) and asserting claims for patent holders and technology plaintiffs (Finjan-side dockets, Cambridge Industries, Workplace Technologies Research). The available record does not support characterizing him either as a dedicated NPE/PAE-side prosecutor or as a pure operating-company defender.

Firm context. He is currently a member at Cozen O'Connor, joining in July 2025 to help launch the firm's San Diego office as part of a four-lawyer IP litigation group hired from Eversheds Sutherland and Buchalter. Before that he was a partner at Eversheds Sutherland (US) for roughly six years (joining the firm's San Diego office from Foley & Lardner), and he practiced previously at Foley & Lardner. His tracked appearances reflect the Cozen and Eversheds periods plus an earlier Cozen O'Connor entry. He is not in-house; no in-house affiliation appears in the record.

Notable cases, outcomes, and PTAB/IPR work. The most prominent tracked matters are Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. (both directions) and Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. v. Cambridge Industries USA, Inc., where he is listed as lead counsel for one side; that dispute has generated a significant PTAB campaign (IPR2025-00433 through 00437), and press coverage indicates the Board has upheld at least one Applied Optoelectronics fiber-optic patent against Cambridge's challenges and that the parallel N.D. Cal. litigation was stayed pending the IPRs. This is the clearest evidence of regular IPR/PTAB engagement; his firm bios also state experience before the PTAB and in German infringement/nullity courts. On the defense side, he was on the Eversheds team representing ESET against Finjan LLC (Finjan v. ESET, S.D. Cal.), a case that began in 2015, mistried in March 2020 due to COVID-19, and ended in a 2023 jury verdict of no infringement for ESET; the court declined ESET's $9.7M fee request, and separate coverage reports a summary-judgment ruling invalidating Finjan patents asserted against ESET. Cozen's announcement likewise cites a summary judgment invalidating asserted patents, a jury verdict of non-infringement in the anti-virus industry, and an AI-related source-code diligence review, but those descriptions are not dated or docket-specific, so they should be treated as firm-supplied rather than independently verified. In Workplace Technologies Research v. PMI, the jury returned a plaintiff's verdict in June 2022 with a damages award subsequently challenged by post-trial motion; again, that was not a patent matter.

Bar / education. Admitted in California (Bar No. 253716) in 2007; J.D., magna cum laude and Order of the Coif, University of California College of the Law, San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings), 2007; A.B. computer science, magna cum laude, Harvard University, 2001. He is listed among Southern California Super Lawyers — Rising Stars (2014–2018) and in Legal 500 US for patent litigation.