Scott Barnett

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Scott D. Barnett — Patent Litigation Summary

Practice focus. Barnett's patent work spans electrical, software, and mechanical technologies, with a secondary life-sciences/pharma component. Reported matters involve EMV smartcard technology, VoIP, client-server and database systems, digital rights management, streaming video, wearable devices, route-guidance systems, spinal implants and arthrodesis nails, insulated wall panels, trailer hitches, hydraulic fracturing equipment, and hunting-equipment (saddle/rope assembly) products. On the pharma side, his firm bio claims a favorable bench-trial ruling in ANDA litigation over Suboxone® Film, plus defense of an opioid-detoxification method patent case. Nothing in the public record indicates Wi-Fi/standards-essential patent work. He also maintains an active patent prosecution docket (USPTO records associate him with filings for GM Cruise, GM Global Technology Operations, Sage Therapeutics, MIT, KARL STORZ, MyoKardia, and Cricut), and his firm describes his practice as covering trademark, copyright, trade secret, prosecution, and litigation work for software, electrical, and mechanical clients.

Side preference. Defense-oriented. The tracked dataset shows a single appearance, on the defendant side, in CRü v. Tethrd LLC (as counsel at Honigman); his broader reported docket is overwhelmingly defense of operating companies — Regions Bank in a series of NPE suits (Liberty Peak Ventures, Auth Token, Communication Interface Technologies, Estech Systems, Milestone IP), Under Armour, OnStar, Capital One, Globus Medical, Groupon, Baker & Taylor, Northern Stamping, and Vilex — alongside occasional declaratory-judgment plaintiff work for accused infringers (Kingspan, DirkThomas) and one plaintiff-side engagement (Tethrd). There is no indication he represents NPEs/PAEs as plaintiffs.

Firm and career. Barnett has been a partner in Honigman LLP's Intellectual Property department and IP Litigation practice, based in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, since joining in August/September 2018 from Harness, Dickey & Pierce, where his practice focused on IP litigation in the technology and life sciences sectors (Honigman press release; Law360). His principal reported wins include Horizon Global Americas v. Northern Stamping (N.D. Ohio), where the asserted trailer-hitch patent was invalidated in an IPR that he led as petitioner's lead counsel; Cellspin Soft v. Under Armour (N.D. Cal.), where the asserted wearable-technology patent was held invalid under § 101; Stern v. Globus Medical (D. Del.), where the primary infringement theory was disposed of on summary judgment; Wundaformer v. Flex Studios (S.D.N.Y./Fed. Cir.), where the plaintiff stipulated to non-infringement after claim construction and Barnett argued the Federal Circuit appeal; and Media Rights Technologies v. Capital One, a successful Federal Circuit appeal on digital rights management technology (all per his Honigman bio).

PTAB/IPR. He appears regularly in post-issuance proceedings. USPTO filings list him as lead counsel for petitioner Northern Stamping in IPR2021-01411 (U.S. Pat. 10,589,585), and he was counsel of record active in IPR2019-00625, including deposition practice. His bio states the Horizon Global patent was held invalid in IPR and that the result was affirmed on appeal; I could not independently verify the Federal Circuit affirmance in the sources reviewed.

Bar and education. J.D., University of Illinois Chicago School of Law (formerly The John Marshall Law School); B.S. in Electrical Engineering, Northwestern University. Admitted in Illinois and Michigan, registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 67,309), and admitted to the Federal Circuit and several district courts (E.D. Mich., N.D. Ill., N.D. Ohio, W.D. Mich., D. Colo., W.D. Tex.). Note a sourcing conflict on his graduation year: Super Lawyers lists 2009 while a Best Lawyers profile lists 2018; the 2009 date is more consistent with his reported practice history.

Caveat on the tracked case. The public docket in the parallel saddle-hunting dispute, Tethrd, LLC v. CRÜZR Saddles LLC (M.D. Tenn., No. 1:24-cv-00076) and its related IPR (IPR2025-01407), lists Loeb & Loeb and Sterlington/Bradley Arant as counsel, not Honigman, and Barnett's own bio describes representing Tethrd as plaintiff in the W.D. Mich. Latitude Outdoors matter. The basis for the tracked CRü v. Tethrd defendant-side entry is therefore not independently confirmed in the public sources reviewed; it is reported here as given in the authoritative case list.