Counsel registry

Alavi Anaipakos

7 case appearances — 7 as plaintiff counsel · 0 as defendant counsel.

Attorneys

Further reading

Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Machine-or-transformation isn't the only § 101 test, business-method patents survived as a category, and the specific Bilski hedging method was unpatentable. The trio of Bilski, Mayo, and Alice gave defendants the modern § 101 motion.
How patent trolls operate (and why the business model works)
A junk patent generates settlement income exactly the same way as a strong one, because nobody pays $1M to test a $200k demand. The mechanics matter because the failure modes — what makes assertion campaigns expensive or risky for the troll — are exactly where defendants find leverage.
The Patent Scam (2017): a documentary on the patent troll industry
Most people learn about patent trolls only when they get sued by one. The Patent Scam does the work of making the problem concrete before that happens.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012)
The two-step framework defendants now recite from memory comes from Mayo, not Alice. Mayo is the often-overlooked but doctrinally essential ancestor of every modern § 101 motion.
Patent reviews: IPR, PGR, and reexamination
Suing in district court to invalidate a patent costs $3-5M and takes years. The USPTO's post-grant review system does it for $200-500k and 12-18 months. For a defendant facing a weak patent, the choice is usually obvious.