Sean H. Suber

I'll research this attorney's professional background before drafting the summary.

Sean H. Suber — patent litigation summary

Specialty / focus. Suber is a Chicago-based trial and appellate lawyer at Winston & Strawn whose patent work sits within a broader complex-commercial, class action, and product-liability practice rather than a standalone IP docket. The one tracked patent case, Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. SAP America, Inc. et al., involved enterprise-software patents (data storage, fault-tolerant messaging, real-time/ZLE data transformation, database query and archiving technology) acquired from Hewlett-Packard. Firm and directory descriptions characterize his technology/industry exposure as consumer products, media & entertainment, technology, and health care; there is no published indication of Wi-Fi/standards-essential or life-sciences patent prosecution work. On the record available, patent matters appear to reach him as appellate and critical-motions work rather than as a first-chair patent trial practice.

Side preference. He is defense-side only in the tracked data: 1 defendant-side appearance, 0 plaintiff-side. That is consistent with his overall profile as a defense litigator for operating companies (consumer brands, media, medical device, agricultural biotech, aviation) and with his role representing SAP against a patent-licensing entity (Valtrus/Key Patent Innovations, characterized as patent assertion entities in the litigation coverage). There is no evidence he prosecutes patent cases for NPEs/PAEs.

Firm context. He is a partner at Winston & Strawn LLP in Chicago. No prior-law-firm history surfaced in the sources reviewed; his Winston career appears continuous, and he holds an appellate specialty (Super Lawyers lists him under Appellate practice).

Notable matters and outcomes.

• In re SAP America, Inc., No. 25-118 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2025) — Suber is listed in the per curiam order as counsel for petitioners SAP America and SAP SE on the mandamus petition seeking intra-district transfer from Marshall to Sherman in the Eastern District of Texas. The Federal Circuit denied the petition (finding district-court errors but no clear abuse of discretion). This is the direct appellate fallout of the tracked Valtrus case.
• The underlying Valtrus litigation was dismissed with prejudice following a joint motion reflecting a confidential settlement; no merits or validity ruling was reached on the asserted patents.
• SAP v. InvestPic — Winston's client SAP recovered $679,420 in attorneys' fees in the Northern District of Texas under the "exceptional case" standard, affirmed by the Federal Circuit; the firm's release names Suber as the appellate lawyer on the team. (His firm bio references this as a Federal Circuit appeal affirming a ~$680K fee award.)

PTAB / IPR. The Valtrus dispute included substantial PTAB activity (SAP IPR petitions such as IPR2025-00414/-00416/-00420 against the asserted patents), but the sources reviewed list the Winston team at the appellate and district stages and do not confirm Suber individually signed the IPR papers. I cannot verify regular PTAB appearance from the available record; treat IPR experience as unconfirmed.

Bar / education. J.D., University of Virginia School of Law (2014); admitted in Illinois and Maryland, with admissions in the Eastern District of Michigan, N.D./C.D. Illinois, and the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits (per his court declaration). Some source dates are inconsistent — Super Lawyers lists Illinois licensure since 2016, which may reflect his first bar admission date rather than graduation; verify the precise timeline against official records.