Shawn S. Chang

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

Let me verify the specific tracked cases and any notable outcomes.

Shawn S. Chang — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus. Chang's practice is concentrated in electrical and computer technologies. His Finnegan profile lists communications systems, wireless technologies, data and signal processing, optical systems, network authentication protocols, semiconductor devices, unmanned aerial systems, and mobile devices. The tracked docket bears this out: the Samsung/Harbor Island Dynamic matters concern through-silicon-via and semiconductor packaging patents; the Google/Apple/Proxense matters involve secure proximity authentication, personal digital keys, and device-ID technologies; Sol IP v. Qualcomm involved 5G, 4G LTE, and Wi-Fi standard-essential patents. Third-party aggregator data (patentbots) also shows heavy prosecution volume for electronics/automotive applicants such as Toshiba, Toyota, Xiaomi, Alibaba, and Mobileye — though that source is not authoritative on his current docket. His work is not pharma/ANDA or mechanical-focused.

Side preference. The tracked appearances split 11 plaintiff / 7 defendant, but that split is somewhat misleading because PTAB petitions are docketed with the petitioner first. Substantively, he works both sides: much of his highest-profile work defends large operating companies (Google, Samsung, NXP, Fidelity) against NPE/PAE assertions, while he has also represented patent owners and plaintiffs, including Sol IP, LLC against Qualcomm, CardioNet/Braemar against InfoBionic, and NICE/Mattersight against CallMiner. He is best described as a defense-oriented patent litigator who is equally comfortable on the patent-owner side.

Firm context. He is currently Of Counsel in Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner's Atlanta office (U.S. Reg. No. 81,437). All tracked appearances are at Finnegan; no prior firm appears in the record. The firm's profile notes he is co-chair of Finnegan's Asian American and Pacific Islander Affinity Group (2022–present) and was selected for NAPABA's 2023 Prospective Partners Program.

Notable cases / outcomes (per Finnegan's own case descriptions).

• Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC — represented Google as petitioner in IPR2020-00755, cancelling all challenged claims on natural language processing/information retrieval, and secured Federal Circuit affirmance (No. 22-1245).
• Fidelity Information Services — four covered business method reviews (CBM2017-00064 et seq.) cancelling all claims of Mirror Imaging's electronic financial document storage patents.
• NICE Ltd. v. CallMiner (D. Del. 1:18-cv-02024) and CardioNet LLC v. InfoBionic (D. Mass. 1:17-cv-10445) — represented plaintiffs in speech-analytics/call-monitoring and medical-device disputes.
• Sol IP, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00270, Judge Albright) — SEP suit on 5G/LTE/Wi-Fi semiconductors, appearing pro hac vice for Sol IP; Finnegan reports the case was successfully settled.
• Samsung/NXP v. Harbor Island Dynamic (IPR2024-01402–01405) — semiconductor patents; he appears as backup counsel on a team led by Joshua Goldberg. The Board's March 13, 2026 final written decision in IPR2024-01405 found all challenged claims unpatentable; the parallel E.D. Tex. case (2:24-cv-00140) was stayed. Patent Owner has sought Director Review.

PTAB / IPR experience. This is a core pillar of his practice, not an occasional sideline. In addition to the matters above, he appears in the Google v. Proxense IPR family (IPR2024-00234, -00782/-00783/-00784, -01318 through -01320), where he argued a Board teleconference on claim-construction and discretionary-denial issues. His profile states he has drafted both successful petitions and successful patent-owner responses, and has handled reexaminations and CBM proceedings.

Bar / education. J.D., University of Georgia School of Law (cum laude, 2014); B.S., Electrical Engineering, UCLA (2004); judicial law clerk to Judge William S. Duffey, Jr., N.D. Ga. (2016–17). Bar/admission specifics beyond his USPTO registration number are sourced only from third-party aggregator sites and should be confirmed against official records before filing.