Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

I'll research the firm's profile and IP litigation practice before drafting.

Good baseline. Now let me verify notable cases, PTAB activity, and key IP partners.

Let me verify the remaining cases and the firm's PTAB/IPR footprint.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP is a full-service, national law firm founded in 1870 and headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama (One Federal Place, 1819 Fifth Avenue North). It maintains 13 offices across Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and the District of Columbia, and describes itself as serving as national, regional and statewide coordinating counsel. On size: the firm entered the Am Law 100 for the first time in 2026 at No. 100, reporting gross revenue of $567.87 million in 2025 (+12%) and net income of $290.6 million (Law.com/Am Law 100 report, April 2026). Chambers' firm profile states "more than 750 attorneys," while ILRG's 2025 headcount ranking lists 663 attorneys and 361 partners (No. 79 among U.S. firms by headcount). It is a large full-service firm with a substantial IP group — not an IP boutique. Chambers USA 2026 lists the firm with three ranked departments and seven ranked individuals; individual Bradley lawyers appear in Chambers' Tennessee IP rankings.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's IP group is litigation-forward rather than procurement-centric, and its docket is technically diverse rather than concentrated in one sector. Recurring areas evidenced in the tracked matters and attorney bios include: networking, telecommunications and cybersecurity (Centripetal Networks v. Cisco; Commworks Solutions v. Adtran); internet and software/e-commerce website technology (Express Mobile v. Pier 1 Imports); environmental/chemical process technology (Midwest Energy Emissions cases); and mechanical and consumer-product patents (CRü v. Tethrd; Rare Breed Triggers v. Orion Arms). Published partner bios describe patent work spanning telecom and networking equipment, mobile phones, oil and gas services, LED bulbs, medical foods, and — for A.J. Bahou — AI, virtual reality, medical devices, blockchain and internet security. The firm also reports Section 337 International Trade Commission experience on both complainant and respondent sides.

Side preference. The tracked data shows a predominantly defense-side practice: 8 defendant-side appearances versus 3 plaintiff-side, roughly a 73/27 defense tilt. That aligns with the firm's engagement profile — representing operating companies such as Cisco, ADTRAN, Pier 1 and refined-coal producers against patent assertions. The plaintiff-side matters are narrower and, in at least one instance, local-counsel in nature (AF Holdco v. Aloft, local counsel), which suggests the firm is not an NPE/PAE assertion shop. It does, however, represent patent owners on a selective basis, including CERT Operations in its affirmative case against Birchtech Corp. and an unlisted plaintiff matter where Daniel L. Huynh is lead counsel.

Notable tracked cases. The highest-profile matter is Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (E.D. Va.), where Bradley served as trial counsel to Cisco. That case produced a district court judgment of roughly $2.6–$3.2 billion against Cisco for willful infringement — at the time described as the largest U.S. patent verdict — which the Federal Circuit vacated in June 2022 on judicial-recusal grounds (the trial judge's wife owned Cisco stock) and remanded for proceedings before a new judge, Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 38 F.4th 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Bradley served as one of several defense firms; the lead appellate and trial roles were held by others. On the adverse side, Bradley (Jeff Dyess, Paul Sykes, Benn Wilson, Ashley Robinson, Jessica Zurlo) represented the CERT defendants in Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., No. 1:19-cv-01334 (D. Del.), where a February 2024 jury found willful indirect infringement of two mercury-control patents and awarded approximately $57.1 million; the court denied CERT's post-trial JMOL motion in September 2025 and denied a new trial bid in November 2025 (Law360, Nov. 20, 2025). Also tracked: Express Mobile, Inc. v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. (defense, James M. Heintz). I was unable to verify public outcomes for Commworks Solutions v. Adtran, CRü v. Tethrd, Rare Breed Triggers v. Orion Arms, or AF Holdco v. Aloft.

PTAB/IPR practice and key partners. The firm's bio materials state that its IP litigators appear before the PTAB (and the ITC) and are registered before the USPTO, and the Centripetal/Cisco matter involved extensive parallel IPR activity (Cisco's IPRs were handled by other counsel). I found no public report quantifying Bradley's own IPR/PGR filing or defense volume, so any scale figure would be unsupported — treat this as a capability the firm advertises rather than a documented PTAB practice concentration. On leadership: Jeffrey D. ("Jeff") Dyess (Birmingham) chairs the firm's Intellectual Property Practice Group; he is a litigator with an industrial-engineering background, admitted to the Federal Circuit and the PTAB. Paul M. Sykes (Birmingham) is a registered patent attorney and former general counsel of ADTRAN who returned to the firm as an IP partner. Benn Wilson is a patent/trade-secret litigator with D. Del., E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex. and ITC Section 337 experience. A.J. Bahou is the firm's AI practice leader and a registered patent attorney focused on electrical/computer engineering technologies. The firm also added a nine-lawyer IP team in Atlanta from Morris, Manning & Martin in April 2025, led by partners Daniel Sineway, Daniel Huynh, Ashley Klein and Adam Thompson (Law.com, April 15, 2025) — an expansion worth noting given the tracked plaintiff-side appearance listing Huynh as lead counsel.