Scott E. Raevsky

I'll research this attorney's background and verify the details.

Let me investigate the indication that he may now be a PTAB administrative patent judge, and gather more on his practice.

Let me confirm the timing of his move to the PTAB bench and check his litigation footprint.

Professional Summary — Scott E. Raevsky

Current position and the key caveat. The tracked case data on Raevsky reflects his prior practice as a patent litigator at Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, where he was advanced to partner effective January 1, 2012 (Knobbe Martens firm announcement). He should not be described as an active litigator today: web-searchable records — including State Bar of California records listing his address as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and dozens of Board decisions authored under his name — indicate he has since joined the PTAB as an Administrative Patent Judge at the USPTO. He appears on PTAB panels from roughly 2021–2022 onward (e.g., Home Depot v. Lynk Labs, IPR2021-01541; Meta Platforms v. Eight kHz, IPR2023-01023; Apple v. Apex Beam, IPR2025-00905; Microsoft v. EyesMatch, IPR2025-00297), and in 2025-authored opinions is identified as "SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge." One third-party analytics source (Exparte/AI Lab) credits him with 200+ panel cases and a ~74% institution rate, but that is an unverified aggregator estimate rather than an authoritative figure.

Technology focus and side of the table. His technical foundation is electrical engineering (B.S.E.E., Brigham Young University, 2002), and his tracked and background matters skew toward electronics, business-method/financial-services patents, and medical devices. Both tracked appearances — International Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC and Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC — were declaratory-judgment actions in which Intellectual Ventures II LLC was the patent-holder defendant. In both he is recorded as back-up counsel. The 0-plaintiff / 2-defendant split is therefore somewhat misleading: he sat on the patent-owner/NPE side defending infringement claims into which an operating company had sued for declaratory relief, rather than representing operating companies against NPEs. His PTAB counsel work confirms that orientation — he served as backup counsel for patent owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC in CBM2014-00160 (J.P. Morgan Chase v. IV II) and IPR2014-00786 (Compass Bank v. IV II), and for patent owner Masimo Corporation in IPR2016-00056 (pulse-oximetry patents).

Other experience and bar/education. Beyond the two tracked cases, his practice included appellate and ITC work: firm blog credit for analysis of Tradestation Group v. Trading Tech. Int'l (CBM2015-00161) and editing/supervising a Knobbe Martens note on the ITC domestic-industry requirement in Certain Road Milling Machines. I could not verify specific verdicts, settlements, or Federal Circuit outcomes attributable to him as counsel from the two tracked matters, and none should be assumed. He was admitted to the California bar on December 14, 2006 (No. 247749) and is a registered U.S. patent practitioner (Reg. No. 54,384); he holds a J.D. from BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School (2006). Note that separate individuals named Scott Raevsky appear in unrelated professional listings (e.g., an in-house patent advisor at Fisher & Paykel in New Zealand with different education), and those should not be conflated with this attorney.