Bragalone

I'll verify the firm's profile and public record before drafting.

Let me verify the firm's current profile, size, and IPR volume.

Bragalone (Bragalone Conroy PC) — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Bragalone Conroy PC is a small, Dallas-based intellectual property boutique headquartered at Chase Tower, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500W, Dallas, Texas. Public filings and directory listings show a single-office shop with a roster in the range of a dozen or fewer lawyers; that headcount estimate comes from third-party directories (e.g., lawyer.com) and is not authoritatively confirmed. No AmLaw 200, AmLaw ranking, or Chambers band placement for the firm was identified in public sources, so it should be characterized as a regional IP litigation boutique rather than BigLaw. The firm maintains an active PTAB and district court docket out of proportion to its size, and its roster has changed over time — notably, Justin B. Kimble, identified in PTAB filings as a founding partner, has since moved to another firm, and his current bio describes Bragalone Conroy in the past tense while crediting him with lead counsel roles in over 100 IPRs.

IP litigation specialty. The practice is concentrated in patent infringement litigation and post-grant proceedings, with a technology mix spanning display and lighting (light-emitting panel assemblies, LCD backlighting), wireless and standards-adjacent communications (Wi-LAN, Super Interconnect Technologies), wearable biometrics/heart-rate monitoring (Valencell), inmate telecommunications and payment systems (Securus Technologies), and memory/semiconductor and sensor technologies (Greenliant Systems, CMOS and ambient-light sensors, DRAM). The firm's public filings describe representation of patent owners across "light emitting panel assemblies," physiological monitoring, and networking technologies — a profile consistent with a patent-monetization and licensing-enforcement practice rather than a general commercial litigation shop.

Side preference. The firm's work is overwhelmingly patent-owner/plaintiff side. The tracked structured data shows 1 plaintiff-side appearance and 0 defendant-side appearances, with Justin B. Kimble as lead counsel for plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC. That single tracked appearance substantially understates the firm's actual docket: PTAB records show the firm appearing repeatedly as counsel for patent-owner entities including Innovative Display Technologies, Delaware Display Group, Wi-LAN, Valencell, Super Interconnect Technologies, Collabo Innovations, and Automation Middleware Solutions. The firm is not exclusively plaintiff-side — it has represented Securus Technologies as a petitioner in IPRs and CBM review, and Jeffrey Bragalone appeared for the defendant in Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions v. Intersil (E.D. Tex.) — but defending operating companies is a minor part of the practice relative to NPE/patent-owner enforcement work.

Notable cases and outcomes. The most prominent tracked matter is Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Canon U.S.A. Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00142 (E.D. Tex., filed Feb. 26, 2014), a light-emitting-panel-assembly campaign brought by an acquirer of patents asserted against display and electronics manufacturers. The firm also drove the related IDT and Delaware Display Group assertions against LG Display, Sony, Microsoft, HP, and others. On appeal, Bragalone argued Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., No. 2019-1048 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2020), which was remanded to the Board; the firm argued and won affirmance for Securus in the Federal Circuit appeal from IPR2015-00155 in June 2017; and Bragalone has argued or briefed Greenliant Systems v. Xicor, 692 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012), United Access Technologies v. Earthlink, 432 F. App'x 976 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. BenQ America, 533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and Tegic Communications v. Board of Regents, 458 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). One cautionary public development: in Securus Technologies v. Global TelLink*, 331 F. Supp. 3d 633 (N.D. Tex. 2017), the court addressed subpoenas seeking to depose Bragalone and Kimble about statements made during IPRs the firm handled, applying the Shelton standard disfavoring depositions of counsel. Specific verdict amounts, settlements, and licensing recoveries were not verifiable from the sources reviewed.

PTAB / IPR practice. Post-grant work is a core competency, not a sideline. USPTO filings show Bragalone Conroy as counsel in dozens of IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings from at least 2014 through 2020, on both sides of the caption: patent owner in IPR2014-01092/01094/01095/01357/01359/01362 and IPR2015-00363/00487 (IDT, Delaware Display Group), CBM2014-00166 and IPR2015-00155 (Securus), IPR2016-00010 (Wi-LAN), IPR2017-00319/00321 (Valencell, with Apple as petitioner), IPR2017-00958/00960 (Collabo Innovations), and IPR2019-01590/01591/01592 (Super Interconnect, with Sony Mobile as petitioner); and petitioner in the Securus matters. One firm attorney's published bio states he served as lead counsel for petitioners and patent owners in over 100 IPRs, though that figure is self-reported and not independently corroborated by a public study. Descriptive IPR volume, not a ranked "top filer" designation, is the defensible characterization.

Key partners / practice leaders. Names reliably documented in court and USPTO filings as firm counsel include Jeffrey R. Bragalone (founding shareholder; lead appellate and PTAB advocate, 30+ years' experience per his own pro hac vice declarations), Justin B. Kimble (founding partner and registered practitioner, Reg. No. 58,591; lead counsel on the tracked IDT v. Canon matter; now practicing elsewhere), Patrick J. Conroy, and Terry A. Saad (registered practitioner, Reg. No. 62,492, frequently designated lead counsel in post-grant proceedings). Other recurring names in filings include Monte M. Bond, T. William Kennedy Jr., Daniel F. Olejko, Nicholas C. Kliewer, Jerry D. Tice II, and Jonathan H. Rastegar. Given the firm's small size and recent departures, current roster and leadership should be re-verified against the firm's own website before publication.