Seth B. Herring

I'll research Seth B. Herring's professional background and patent litigation practice before writing the summary.

Let me verify the Centripetal/Keysight litigation outcomes, the Federal Circuit appeal, and the IPR proceedings.

Let me verify the Federal Circuit appeal docket, the '437 patent IPR, and the notable district court outcomes.

Seth B. Herring — patent litigation practice summary

Focus areas. Herring's patent work centers on electronics and networking technologies rather than life sciences: wireless and wired networking, semiconductors, computer hardware and software, network security/cybersecurity, and medical devices. His firm biographies describe patent litigation across those categories, and the tracked matters reflect it — the multi-forum Centripetal Networks campaign against Keysight Technologies (network traffic monitoring and security enforcement equipment; asserted patents in the Eastern District of Virginia, the ITC, Germany, and the UPC), plus Ethernet, network-card, and 5G-standard disputes and mechanical spinal-surgical-table cases. He also maintains a substantial trademark/trade dress practice (TTAB oppositions and cancellations, food and beverage, consumer products, hospitality), which is outside the patent scope but relevant to characterizing his practice.

Side preference. All seven tracked appearances are on the defendant/respondent side (0 plaintiff-side), consistent with a defense-oriented practice: defending operating companies such as Keysight and, per firm descriptions, Box, Netgear, D-Link, Acer/Gateway, and Qualcomm Atheros against NPE and competitor assertions. The tracked record therefore understates his range — firm biographies also describe plaintiff-side patent work (representing Mizuho OSI in suits against Allen Medical/Hill-Rom) and plaintiff-side trademark enforcement (Benefit Cosmetics). The defendant-side concentration in the tracked data appears to be a function of the cases captured rather than a categorical refusal of plaintiff-side engagements.

Firm context and notable matters. The tracked matters list Reed Smith, where he was a partner in the San Francisco office from 2011 until 2026 and was repeatedly named in IAM Patent 1000 (2024–2026). In May 2026 he joined Kilpatrick (Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton) as a partner on its patent litigation team in San Francisco, so the Reed Smith appearances reflect work performed there rather than his current affiliation. Earlier in his career he was an associate at Howrey LLP (2007–2011). Verifiable results include the Centripetal v. Keysight defense, where the ITC found no Section 337 violation (December 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB invalidation of asserted claims, and foreign tribunals (UPC, EPO, German proceedings) ruled against Centripetal; the $270M Open Text v. Box suit (N.D. Cal.), where the damages expert was struck and the jury awarded under 2% of the original demand; and Fujitsu v. Netgear (N.D. Cal.), a three-week jury trial yielding invalidity, non-infringement, and no willfulness, listed among the Daily Journal's Top California Defense Verdicts of 2012.

PTAB/IPR experience and credentials. He appears in IPR proceedings in both postures: as counsel of record on Keysight's IPR petition against the '437 patent, as counsel in the Centripetal–Keysight IPR appeals (Fed. Cir. No. 2024-2373, per RPX Insight arising from IPR2023-01329 and IPR2023-00445), and as backup counsel to patent owner Mizuho OSI in IPR2022-00920 (later withdrawn). Admitted in California since 2007; J.D., University of California College of the Law, San Francisco (2007); B.A. in Chemistry and Philosophy, Brandeis University.