Thurston Webb

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Thurston Webb — Patent Litigation Summary

Thurston Webb is a patent litigator who practiced at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, where he is identified in firm materials as former counsel (i.e., no longer with the firm as of the firm's December 2020 reporting). His documented patent work at the firm spans PTAB and appellate-side patent disputes and defense of operating companies in district court litigation; a 2013 firm client-success write-up lists him as an associate on a patent defense team for Volvo. The public record on his file is thin — the tracked docket data here contains a single, largely unindexed appearance (plaintiff side), so any practice-area characterization rests mainly on firm-published matter descriptions rather than a broad case history.

Notable matters. He was a member of the Kilpatrick Townsend team that represented Thryv, Inc. (formerly YellowPages.com) in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, No. 18-916 (U.S. 2020) — the only patent case the Supreme Court heard in 2020, decided 7-2 in the client's favor on the non-appealability of PTAB time-bar institution decisions under §314(d). Firm materials credit him as part of the team handling Supreme Court briefing and oral-argument preparation, alongside Adam Charnes (argument), Mitch Stockwell (PTAB/Federal Circuit), and others; the matter was later recognized by Managing IP as Impact Case of the Year and by Law360 among the ten biggest patent cases of 2020. He also appears in firm reporting as an associate on the Volvo patent defense team in 2013.

Side preference and PTAB exposure. The verified matters place him on the defense/respondent side — representing the accused infringer in district court (Volvo) and the patent owner's adversary in the PTAB/Supreme Court track (Thryv). That is in tension with the tracked data's "plaintiff" labeling, which appears to reflect an unelaborated single entry rather than a documented pattern; I would flag the label as unreliable rather than rely on it. The Thryv matter itself is an IPR-related appeal, indicating at least some PTAB-adjacent work, but the public record does not show him as a recurring first-chair IPR petitioner's counsel.

Bar and education. Not verified in the sources reviewed; the available firm news items do not state his bar admissions, law school, or technical degree, and no independent profile (Justia, firm bio page, court opinion) was retrieved before research concluded. These items should be confirmed through a current bar directory or a direct firm/employer bio before inclusion in any filing or client-facing material.