Counsel registry

Calfee

1 case appearance — 0 as plaintiff counsel · 1 as defendant counsel.

Attorneys

Further reading

Lumen View v. FindTheBest (2013-2016): when a defendant fought back, the troll paid
Same patent. Same plaintiff playbook. Different outcome — because the defendant had the resources and the will to fight. Most don't. That's the asymmetry this site is built to fix.
KSR International v. Teleflex (2007)
Pre-KSR, an obviousness rejection required explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art. Post-KSR, common sense, design needs, and predictable variations all do the work — and most patents don't survive.
How to respond to a patent troll demand letter
Trolls don't write demand letters expecting a fight. The right response makes you the wrong target.
Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014)
Octane Fitness rejected the rigid Brooks Furniture test and restored district-court discretion over fee awards. Together with its companion Highmark, it gave defendants the most realistic post-trial recovery path the modern patent system has produced.
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.