Vinay Kumar Malik

I'll research this attorney's background and practice.

I'm seeing a possible name collision. Let me disambiguate carefully.

Professional Summary — Vinay Kumar Malik

Specialty / focus. Malik's tracked practice is concentrated in large-scale patent assertion campaigns in the financial-services and computer-networking space. All three tracked matters arise out of Intellectual Ventures II LLC's 2013 wave of infringement suits against banks and financial institutions, which asserted patents on online-banking infrastructure — security certificate management, packet filtering, intrusion/anomaly detection and firewall technology, and secure electronic-transaction infrastructure. There is no evidentiary basis in the tracked case list for pharma, mechanical, or standards-essential Wi-Fi work. Third-party litigation records also place a Vinay Kumar Malik on patent-monetization matters for Pragmatus Telecom, LLC (see disambiguation note below).

Side preference. Strictly plaintiff-side. The tracked record is 3 plaintiff appearances and 0 defendant appearances, all on behalf of a single client family — Intellectual Ventures. In practice that means he has worked for a patent-holding/assertion entity rather than defense of operating companies; no defense-side representations appear in the tracked data. His role descriptors across the three matters vary (trial counsel, attorney, PHV counsel), which is typical of an associate/counsel-level contributor on a large coordinated campaign.

Firm context. His tracked appearances are all under Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson LLP, the Palo Alto patent-litigation boutique founded by former DLA Piper partners Ian Feinberg, Elizabeth Day, David Alberti and Clayton Thompson. Public third-party profiles (Plainsite) separately list a Vinay Kumar Malik at DLA Piper (US) LLP, Menlo Park, CA — consistent with the boutique's origin, though I could not independently confirm his DLA Piper tenure or dates. Court records confirm he was admitted pro hac vice in the IV banking cases in 2013 alongside the firm's named partners (Alberti, Feinberg, Day, Bohl, Zolotorev, Lim).

Notable cases / outcomes. Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (W.D. Mo., No. 2:13-cv-04160; tracked as his trial-counsel appearance) was the lead case in the banking campaign. The outcome was adverse to his client: the asserted firewall patent (U.S. 6,715,084) was held unpatentable by the PTAB in IPR2014-00801 and a companion IBM IPR, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 27, 2017 (Nos. 2016-1519, -1520, -1528), leaving IV without an enforceable patent; Jones Day has publicly reported that Compass Bank likewise prevailed in three IPRs cancelling every asserted claim. Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group is the second tracked matter; I could not verify its disposition from public sources. Court records also show him admitted PHV for IV in Intellectual Ventures I/II v. Bank of America (W.D.N.C., No. 3:13-cv-00358) and Intellectual Ventures I v. Motorola Mobility (S.D. Fla., No. 0:13-cv-61358).

PTAB / IPR experience. No verified record of Malik appearing as counsel of record in an IPR or PGR proceeding. The IV banking patents he litigated were heavily challenged at the Board and ultimately cancelled there, so he was exposed to the parallel PTAB track as litigation counsel, but I would not characterize him as a regular PTAB practitioner without confirmation.

Bar / education. Not reliably sourced for this individual; omitted. Note the ambiguity below.

Disambiguation note (important). A second attorney named Vinay Kumar Malik practices in Princeton, NJ and Fairfax, VA — a registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 59751), partner at Mannava & Kang, P.C. and founder of VKM Law Group, with a prosecution/portfolio-management practice (Accenture, VIAVI Solutions, Hughes Network Systems) plus immigration work; he is listed as admitted in NJ, NY, VA, DC and holds a J.D. from George Mason (2007), an M.S. from RMIT and a B.S. from the University of Mumbai. That profile also mentions prior work at DLA Piper US and Finnegan, so a same-person match is conceivable, but the practice focus, geography and licensing are markedly different from the California litigation counsel in the tracked cases. I could not confirm either way, and I have not attributed the George Mason/Mumbai/RMIT credentials or the USPTO registration number to the litigation attorney. Any use of those facts should be verified against a firm bio or bar record first.