Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein

I'll research the firm's profile, practice description, and notable matters before drafting.

Let me verify the two tracked matters and the firm's litigation/PTAB profile.

Let me verify a few specific points: the AlmondNet outcome, the Orveon matter, office footprint, and PTAB scale.

Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP ("ARE") is a New York intellectual property boutique headquartered at 405 Lexington Avenue (the Chrysler Building) in Manhattan. It is a single-office boutique rather than a BigLaw or regional general-practice firm: the most recent IP Stars/Managing IP profile lists 36 lawyers, including 17 partners, and the firm states that more than 20 of its attorneys are registered to practice before the USPTO and that over 90% hold technical degrees. It is not an AmLaw-ranked firm by revenue or headcount; its recognitions are boutique-focused, including a WTR 1000 recommended-firm ranking for 2026 and IP Stars "highly recommended" listings for patent and IP disputes. (Note: some older attorney bios still list a prior 90 Park Avenue address, reflecting an office move.)

IP litigation specialty. ARE's docket is concentrated at the intersection of electronics, computer-implemented technology, and consumer/life-sciences products. Its patent practice page and World IP Review profile describe prosecution and litigation experience spanning superconductors, semiconductor chips, digital communications, computer software, medical devices, battery technology, bioengineered cell lines, and mechanical/complex machinery. The two tracked litigation matters illustrate the mix: online advertising and behavioral-targeting technology (AlmondNet), and e-commerce transaction/electronic-token technology (AML IP). The firm also fields a substantially larger trademark and copyright practice — its WTR 1000 rankings and much of its press coverage center on trademark enforcement — and lists ITC litigation and PTAB work among its practice areas.

Side preference. The firm works both sides rather than functioning as a dedicated NPE/PAE shop or a pure defense house. Of the two tracked appearances, one is plaintiff-side and one defendant-side: ARE represented the AlmondNet Group as plaintiff in AlmondNet, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., and it represents the defendant operating company in AML IP LLC v. Orveon Global US LLC. The plaintiff-side matter is a licensing-driven patent-owner suit (the AlmondNet Group is described in court filings as focused on R&D and patent licensing, with operating subsidiaries Datonics and Intent IQ), while the defense-side matter is a conventional NPE defense for a cosmetics/brand operating company (Orveon Global owns Laura Mercier, bareMinerals, and Buxom). The small sample size means no reliable inference about overall side ratios should be drawn.

Notable cases and outcomes. The most prominent tracked matter is AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Yahoo! Inc., filed in the E.D.N.Y. in March 2016 and later transferred to the District of Delaware, in which ARE (Charles R. Macedo as lead counsel per the tracked data) asserted ten advertising-targeting patents against Yahoo's ad platforms. Yahoo filed a series of CBM/PGR petitions at the PTAB against the asserted patents; the AlmondNet Group's public account states that it defeated every challenge and that Verizon/Oath subsequently settled and took a license to the portfolio. Separately, the AlmondNet Group won a $122 million jury verdict against Amazon in the W.D. Tex. in June 2024 on the '639 and '139 targeted-advertising patents — but the public record I reviewed does not confirm ARE as counsel in that later case, so that outcome should not be attributed to the firm without verification. In the defense-side matter, AML IP, LLC v. Orveon Global US LLC (S.D.N.Y., No. 1:25-cv-00970, filed Feb. 3, 2025, Judge Vernon S. Broderick), AML IP asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838 on electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens; at least one case-aggregation source lists the matter as closed, but I could not verify the disposition (dismissal, settlement, or otherwise) from a primary source.

PTAB / IPR practice. ARE maintains an active post-grant practice on both petitioner and patent-owner sides, built largely around Macedo, who has served as lead counsel in IPRs invalidating challenged claims and in proceedings where patent-owner claims survived, and who co-chairs the PTAB Committee of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association. A notable public result is Prime Time Toys v. Spin Master, where the firm's team (partners Kenneth George and Brian Comack) represented petitioner Prime Time Toys against soft-projectile-launcher patents; in July 2024 then-Director Kathi Vidal reversed a PTAB denial of institution and remanded for trial, a procedurally significant outcome in the discretionary-denial line of cases. An earlier example is Askeladden L.L.C. (IPR2017-00083), with Macedo as lead counsel. The firm also has an unusually deep appellate and amicus practice for its size — Macedo has been counsel of record or additional counsel on roughly 50 party and amicus briefs before the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit, including in Arthrex, American Axle, Return Mail, Alice, Mayo, and Cuozzo — though I found no public report quantifying the firm's total IPR/PGR filing volume, so no scale figure is stated here.

Key partners / practice leaders. Charles R. Macedo (Of Counsel; physicist by training, Columbia J.D.; listed as lead counsel on the AlmondNet matter) is the firm's most visible patent litigator and appellate/PTAB strategist, ranked in IAM Strategy 300 and repeatedly selected to Super Lawyers. Richard S. Mandaro (Managing Partner, having succeeded Anthony F. Lo Cicero in September 2025; electrical engineering background) litigates patent, trademark, and trade-secret cases in the S.D.N.Y., E.D. Tex., and California districts, and served as liaison counsel for a defendant group in the Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing multidistrict litigation. Douglas A. Miro (partner; listed as lead counsel in the Orveon defense) handles both contentious and non-contentious IP work, with a technology background and a substantial trademark/TTAB docket. Kenneth P. George and Brian A. Comack are the partners most associated with the firm's PTAB petitioner work. Daniel S. Ebenstein is the firm's senior partner. Roster details are drawn from the firm's site and IP Stars/WTR profiles; the firm's leadership has changed recently, so current titles should be confirmed against arelaw.com before publication.