Steve N. Six

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me get his firm profile and check for patent-specific and appellate experience.

Steve N. Six — Patent Litigation Profile

Specialty and focus. Six's tracked patent appearance is a single matter, and it is not representative of a patent-focused practice. Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-04160-NKL (W.D. Mo., filed June 20, 2013) involved a portfolio of computer-security and financial-services software patents — high-resolution access control ('694), security infrastructure for electronic transactions ('574), firewall/intrusion detection ('084), controlled distribution of digital property ('409), and a cryptographic engine ('666). Nothing in his firm biography, Super Lawyers listing, or Best Lawyers profile describes a patent prosecution, standards-essential (Wi-Fi/SEP), Hatch-Waxman, or mechanical-patent practice. His publicly described areas of focus are antitrust (including price-fixing cartel claims), general business and commercial litigation, appellate practice, mediation/arbitration, and personal injury/product liability. He lists no engineering or technical degree.

Side preference. Plaintiff-side, though not as an NPE specialist. His one tracked patent matter is as plaintiff's counsel (local counsel) for Intellectual Ventures II, a well-known non-practicing entity. His overall practice, as described by his firm, is predominantly plaintiffs' complex litigation — he "has represented plaintiffs and defendants," but the antitrust, consumer, and MDL work at Stueve Siegel Hanson is contingency plaintiffs' work. The IV matter appears to have been local-counsel coverage in the Western District of Missouri rather than a substantive patent role: the docket shows him filing the pro hac vice motions for out-of-state IV counsel, certificates of service, and initial disclosures.

Firm and career context. Since 2011 he has been a partner at Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP (Kansas City, MO), a plaintiffs' complex-litigation firm founded in 2001. Before that: partner at Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman (1994–2005); judge on the Douglas County, Kansas district court (2005–2008); 43rd Attorney General of Kansas (2008–2011); law clerk to Judge Deanell R. Tacha, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (1993–94). He was nominated to the Tenth Circuit in 2011; the nomination was returned without a Senate vote. He is the same individual as "Stephen Newton Six" — the docket spellings "Steve N. Six" and "Steven N. Six" refer to this attorney.

Outcomes, PTAB, credentials. The IV/Commerce Bancshares case was stayed and then dismissed without prejudice on June 4, 2014, pending inter partes reviews, with the court retaining jurisdiction to reopen after the PTAB and any appeals concluded. The asserted claims were ultimately held unpatentable by the PTAB in proceedings brought by IBM and by the defendant banks (including Commerce Bancshares), and the Federal Circuit affirmed in December 2016 — an adverse outcome for plaintiff IV, and one in which Six's own involvement was limited to local-counsel tasks. No IPR, PGR, or CBM appearances by Six are reflected in the tracked data or in searchable USPTO records; the IPRs in the IV case were prosecuted by other counsel. His verified notable results are non-patent: a $217.7 million bellwether jury verdict and subsequent $1.51 billion nationwide settlement in the Syngenta corn MDL (firm agricultural litigation he lists under his experience), and argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Colorado. Bar admissions: Kansas (1993) and Missouri (1994), plus the Tenth, Eighth, Fourth, Second, and Eleventh Circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court; Carleton College (B.A. 1988) and University of Kansas School of Law (J.D. 1993). Best Lawyers has recognized him for Appellate Practice, Commercial Litigation, and Litigation–Antitrust.

Bottom line: Six is a Kansas City commercial/appellate generalist and plaintiffs' litigator with one local-counsel appearance in a 2013 NPE suit, not a patent specialist; courts and opposing counsel should not treat him as a recurring PTAB or patent-trial practitioner on this record.