Taylor N. Mauze

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

Let me verify firm history, PTAB work, and outcomes for the tracked cases.

Let me confirm the prior firm and PTAB appearance details.

Taylor N. Mauze — patent litigation practice summary

Focus areas. Mauze is an IP litigation and trial attorney with an electrical engineering background (B.Eng., UT Austin), and her patent work clusters in computer, networking, and electronics technologies: video streaming and content-delivery architecture (the VideoLabs/VL Collective portfolio), distributed cloud storage (Kove IO v. Amazon Web Services), virtualization software (Cirba v. VMware), and semiconductor manufacturing (Ocean Semiconductor v. NVIDIA). She has also handled consumer-products and mechanical-adjacent matters, including defense of Wenger S.A. in a backpack/USB-charging patent case and representation of Arconic in a trade-secret trial over aerospace wing-component manufacturing. Firm and press descriptions of her practice emphasize late-stage litigation — claim construction and Markman practice, invalidity and infringement contentions, evidentiary disputes, expert and witness preparation, and trial.

Side preference. The tracked record is entirely plaintiff-side: 3 of 3 appearances, all as counsel for patent owners/asserting entities (VideoLabs/VL Collective in two matters, and one additional plaintiff matter). That said, her firm bio states she has litigated patent cases for both plaintiffs and defendants, and the Wenger representation was a defense-side engagement — so the plaintiff-side skew reflects the tracked docket more than an absolute practice limitation.

Firm context. She is at Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF), a majority women-owned national trial boutique, where she is based in Austin. Before joining RJLF she clerked for Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas — the district's busiest patent bench — and prior to that worked as an IP disputes associate at a global law firm; a Law360 attorney profile lists a "Norton Rose" affiliation for her, though RJLF's own bio does not name the firm, so that prior-employer detail should be treated as reported rather than firm-confirmed.

Notable matters and outcomes. The three tracked cases are all VideoLabs-related: VideoLabs, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc. (D. Del.), where she appeared as of counsel and where the court denied Netflix's partial § 101 motion to dismiss in May 2024 — though the patents later fared poorly in parallel PTAB proceedings (see below); VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (W.D. Tex.), where she served as local counsel alongside lead counsel from co-counsel firms; and one additional plaintiff-side matter tracked without a case name, in which she is listed as trial counsel. Beyond the tracked list, she was a member of the trial teams that obtained a $525 million patent verdict against Amazon Web Services in Kove IO, Inc. v. AWS (N.D. Ill.), which with interest produced a $673 million final judgment in August 2024 — a result Law360 recognized as a "Legal Lions" award; an $84 million willful-infringement verdict for Cirba against VMware in the District of Delaware; and a $15 million verdict for Droplets against Yahoo in the Northern District of California, later increased to roughly $27 million including interest on post-trial motions. She has also been recognized as a Texas Lawyer "Rising Star" and in Best Lawyers "Ones to Watch" (IP and patent litigation).

PTAB / IPR experience. Her publicly indexed PTAB footprint is thin. PTAB databases show a single proceeding in which she is identified on the patent-owner side (filed October 2021, categorized under communications and software/security), and in the VideoLabs-Amazon case she filed the district-court notice regarding an IPR. She does not appear to be a regular PTAB advocate the way the PTAB bar's specialists are; no significant PGR/IPR merits record for her is readily verifiable from public sources. The VideoLabs portfolio saw substantial PTAB activity by Netflix and others, and the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB decisions invalidating challenged claims of the '559 and '790 patents — outcomes adverse to her client, but the IPR advocacy itself was led by other counsel.

Bar and education. Admitted in Texas, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; J.D., University of Texas School of Law (2016); B.Eng. in electrical engineering, University of Texas at Austin.

Caveat: the summaries above rely on firm biographies, Law360/Best Lawyers profiles, court dockets, and published decisions. Details of her precise role in individual matters (particularly the untitled trial-counsel matter and any PTAB appearances) are not fully verifiable from public sources and should be confirmed against internal files.