Tyler R. Train

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

Let me verify the ArcelorMittal/VinFast matter, PTAB activity, and prior firm history.

Let me confirm the prior-firm history and any other notable results.

Attorney Summary: Tyler R. Train

Specialty / focus. Train is a Principal at Fish & Richardson, listed in the firm's Orange County and San Diego offices, whose practice centers on intellectual property litigation with a stated emphasis on medical device and medtech patent disputes. Fish's bio also identifies semiconductors, software and mobile applications, optics and lighting, and prosecution/counseling work (patentability, prior art, licensing) as part of his docket. His technical background is biomedical engineering (M.S., Johns Hopkins), and the registered-patent-agent data shows prosecution filings for Samsung, Mayo Foundation, NTT, LG Display, Sleep Number, and others. The tracked matters skew toward mechanical/materials and networking hardware rather than pharma or standards-essential licensing (no Wi-Fi SEP work appears in the record; the Entropic matter involves coax/MoCA-type home-networking patents).

Side preference. Consistent defense-side representation of operating companies. The authoritative count is 0 plaintiff-side / 1 defendant-side appearances, and every verified matter fits that pattern: VinFast (ArcelorMittal), DISH Network (Entropic Communications), and Accu-Tac (B-5, Inc.). There is no indication of NPE/PAE assertion or plaintiff-side licensing work.

Firm context. Current: Fish & Richardson (elevated to Principal in the January 2025 principal class). Prior: Womble Bond Dickinson's Irvine, California office, where he was an IP litigation associate; a July 2020 Bloomberg Law IP Law Daily firm-news item lists him among Womble Bond Dickinson IP attorneys, and the Accu-Tac result was announced under the WBD banner. He is not in-house. He is active in the Orange County IP Law Association and on the board of DeviceAlliance (a medtech networking organization) — professional affiliations only.

Notable cases and outcomes.

• ArcelorMittal of Luxembourg v. VinFast Auto Ltd. — the only tracked case. ArcelorMittal asserted two hot-stamped aluminum-coated steel patents (U.S. 10,961,602 and 11,326,227) in both an ITC Section 337 action (337-TA-1402) and a parallel C.D. Cal. suit (2:24-cv-03128); Train appeared for the VinFast/Vingroup defendants. Secondary trade coverage reports that the ITC terminated the investigation in VinFast's favor on final determination (September 2025), that PTAB final written decisions in POSCO-filed IPRs (not VinFast's) held the claims unpatentable as obvious (July 2026), and that ArcelorMittal then withdrew the district court action. Flag: the ITC/PTAB disposition and withdrawal details rest on industry press and trade-remedy bulletins rather than a court opinion I could verify directly; confirm against the ITC and PTAB dockets before relying on them.
• Entropic Communications, LLC v. DISH Network Corp., C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-01043 — Train (with Christopher Marchese) represented DISH and affiliated counter-defendants. He filed the supporting declaration for DISH's motion to extend the claim-construction schedule pending institution decisions on seven DISH IPR petitions against Entropic's patents. Outcome not established from the sources reviewed.
• B-5, Inc. v. Accu-Tac, LLC, C.D. Cal. 5:20-cv-00532 — while at Womble Bond Dickinson, obtained summary judgment of non-infringement as to Accu-Tac's redesigned products and a bar on pre-2019 damages on the prior designs, plus a stay pending ex parte reexamination, which the USPTO granted on substantial-new-question grounds (Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, March 1 order).

PTAB / IPR experience. Yes — this is a substantive part of his profile. He authored a 2020 Law360 series on PTAB discretionary and serial/parallel petition denial (A Proposed Alternative to PTAB Discretionary Denial Factors; A Novel Framework for PTAB Parallel Petition Denials; PTAB Factors for Instituting IPR: What the Stats Show), plus End of the Iancu Era (Daily Journal, 2021) and NHK-Fintiv: Reaching the Tipping Point? (WIPR, 2021). His bios describe district court, PTAB, and ITC litigation along with IPR/PGR and ex parte reexamination work.

Bar / education (sourced). Admitted to the State Bar of California, December 11, 2017 (Bar No. 318998); USPTO Registration No. 76108. J.D., Pepperdine University School of Law (2017); M.S., Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University (2020); B.S., Louisiana State University (2012). Recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch (2026).

Caveats. (1) Law360 maintains two attorney pages under this name; one lists a 2014 Finjan LLC v. Palo Alto Networks matter that predates his December 2017 bar admission, so that entry is likely a data artifact or a different individual and should not be attributed to him without docket confirmation. (2) Firm-bio claims of having "tried multiple patent cases to verdict" are self-reported and not independently verified here. (3) The ITC/PTAB outcomes in the ArcelorMittal matter come from secondary sources, as noted above.