William V. Custer IV

I'll research this attorney's background and practice before writing the summary.

Let me verify the SIPCO/Emerson case details and outcome, and check for any IP-specific practice focus.

William V. Custer IV — Patent Litigation Summary

Specialty / focus. Mr. Custer is an Atlanta-based trial lawyer whose practice is centered on complex commercial litigation, product liability, and toxic-tort/mass-tort defense rather than on patent prosecution or IP portfolio work. His tracked patent litigation is confined to one long-running dispute: the wireless mesh networking patent campaign between SIPCO, LLC / IP Co., LLC (an NPE founded by inventor T. David Petite) and Emerson Electric Co. and its Rosemount/Fisher-Rosemount subsidiaries. Technology at issue was wireless mesh/"smart" networking used in Emerson's Smart Wireless process-control and instrumentation products (patents including the '692, '893, '511, '492, '732, '780, and '842 patents, prosecuted alongside related IPRs and a CBM review). Available firm and directory profiles do not otherwise describe an IP-specific practice; his Bryan Cave page lists commercial litigation, fiduciary litigation, product liability, and toxic tort areas, and he serves as co-leader of the firm's Toxic Tort Class Action and Mass Tort team.

Side preference. In his three tracked patent appearances he consistently represented the operating company, Emerson — twice as defendant (in the SIPCO infringement suits) and once as plaintiff in Emerson's declaratory-judgment action against SIPCO and IP Co. Put differently, he defends operating companies against NPE/PAE infringement claims, and his role is that of regional trial/local counsel within a larger defense team rather than as patent-owner counsel waging infringement suits. His broader case history (Law360 lists roughly 14 tracked matters, largely commercial, banking, product-liability, and fiduciary disputes) reinforces that patent matters are a limited slice of a general litigation practice.

Firm context. He has practiced at Bryan Cave (now Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP), where he is a partner in the Atlanta office; available directories list no prior firm for his litigation career.

Notable cases / outcomes. His most prominent tracked matter is the SIPCO/Emerson litigation: Emerson's Northern District of Georgia declaratory-judgment action (Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, N.D. Ga. 1:15-cv-00319) and the corresponding infringement action (SIPCO, LLC et al. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., transferred from E.D. Tex. to N.D. Ga., 1:16-cv-02690), plus a Delaware action in which he appears as local counsel. Those cases were stayed pending PTAB review, and the patents-in-suit were ultimately found unpatentable in a series of Emerson IPRs/CBM proceedings, with the Federal Circuit affirming (e.g., SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 939 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and a nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance in 2019). The PTAB appeals were handled on Emerson's behalf by Ropes & Gray and other national IP counsel, so the appellate win is not attributable to Mr. Custer personally; his contributions were at the district-court level.

PTAB / IPR experience. Not flagged. The Emerson–SIPCO IPR/CBM petitions and appeals were litigated primarily by specialized IP firms; sources do not show Mr. Custer appearing before the PTAB or as counsel of record in those agency proceedings, and he is not identified as a registered patent practitioner.

Bar / education. Admitted in Georgia (1986); U.S. Supreme Court; Eleventh Circuit; and the Middle, Northern, and Southern Districts of Georgia. University of Georgia, J.D. (1986); Emory University, B.A. (1983).

Caveat: Firm and directory profiles (BCLP, Chambers, Legal 500, Martindale) describe a general commercial/product-liability trial practice and do not characterize Mr. Custer as a patent specialist; his patent work as reflected in public records is limited to the SIPCO/Emerson wireless-networking dispute.