Castellano

I'll research this firm before drafting.

Let me verify the specific case and the practice footprint.

Let me check the attorney's current affiliation and the Veloxis matter specifically.

Firm overview. The tracked entity labeled "Castellano" resolves in the data to an individual attorney — Jeffrey T. Castellano — rather than to a freestanding patent litigation firm; I could not identify any U.S. patent litigation firm named simply "Castellano" that matches these two appearances. His practice has been housed at two firms: Shaw Keller LLP, a small Wilmington, Delaware IP‑litigation boutique (where he was a partner and the tracked matters likely originated), and DLA Piper LLP (US), where he has been Of Counsel in the Wilmington office since March 2022. Size indicator: the work sits at both ends of the spectrum — a Delaware litigation boutique (Shaw Keller, a handful of IP‑litigation partners) and a global AmLaw‑ranked firm (DLA Piper). No AmLaw or Chambers ranking is published for a "Castellano" firm, and I would not attribute Shaw Keller's or DLA Piper's rankings to this entry without qualification. Note also several unrelated same‑name entities that are not connected to these cases: CASTELLANO PLLC (a Washington‑DC/Alexandria IP prosecution‑and‑litigation shop run by Richard A. Castellano), castellano ip – studio legale (Milan), and Castellanos & Co (Colombia).

IP litigation specialty. The tracked practice is Delaware‑centric patent litigation. The technology mix, drawn from the case list and the docket record, is broad but weighted toward life sciences: Hatch‑Waxman/ANDA pharmaceutical work (Veloxis v. Glenmark, over tacrolimus/Envarsus XR), biotech and genomic‑analysis instruments (ArcherDX v. Qiagen, D. Del. 1:18‑cv‑01019), and medical devices (Endobotics v. Medrobotics, D. Del. 1:19‑cv‑00381). Over the same period the practice has also touched software/consumer electronics (AttestWave v. Citrix, D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00250) and Delaware's historically heavy telecom and Internet‑technology docket (the Rembrandt Technologies patent MDL). DLA Piper's own practice description for him lists pharmaceuticals, chemicals, medical devices, consumer electronics, telecommunications, software, and Internet technologies, plus trade secret and patent‑licensing disputes.

Side preference. The structured data show 0 plaintiff‑side and 2 defendant‑side appearances, and both tracked roles are defense: local (Delaware) counsel in Veloxis v. Glenmark and lead counsel in an untitled matter. Those two roles describe his usual posture — Delaware counsel or first‑chair for parties whose national lead counsel is elsewhere (for example, he was Delaware counsel for Citrix in 2025 and for ScentAir while Crowell & Moring led). That said, "defense‑only" would overstate it: he appears in the public record for plaintiffs as well, including representing Endobotics LLC — identified in third‑party docket analytics (Unified Patents) as an NPE with third‑party financing — and appearing for ArcherDX and for the Rembrandt plaintiffs. The 0‑plaintiff count reflects the narrow two‑case sample, not a structural plaintiff/defendant split.

Notable matters. The most concrete public result is Endobotics LLC v. Medrobotics Corp., where Judge Colm Connolly entered default judgment on December 1, 2020 in favor of Endobotics for $6.8 million, trebled for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, plus costs, attorney fees, and 3.5% post‑judgment interest, striking the defendant's motion to vacate the default. He also appeared at the August 2021 Delaware jury trial in ArcherDX v. Qiagen (Reuters listed him of Shaw Keller for Archer); I could not verify a trial outcome for that case from the sources reviewed. On Veloxis v. Glenmark: the 2025 Delaware ANDA action (1:25‑cv‑00458) lists Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel as Delaware counsel for Glenmark, not Castellano, so the tracked "local counsel for defendant" appearance may correspond to a different or earlier Veloxis‑Glenmark matter that I could not confirm — flagging that as unverified rather than asserting it.

PTAB/IPR practice. There is no public report establishing an IPR/PGR filing volume for this practice, so any figure would be invented; the data do not support a scale claim. The verifiable indicators are qualitative: his professional bio states he has handled disputes at the PTAB and the ITC, and in July 2018 he moderated a Delaware Chapter Federal Bar Association CLE panel of Delaware district judges and PTAB judges on the intersection of district court and PTAB practice (stays pending IPR, estoppel, claim construction).

Key practitioners. Jeffrey T. Castellano is the sole tracked attorney and the through‑line figure (Delaware bar since 2006, USPTO‑registered, admitted to the D. Del., Third Circuit, and Federal Circuit; former associate at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, later partner at Shaw Keller, now Of Counsel at DLA Piper Wilmington). Adjacent practice leaders, if the relevant firm is DLA Piper, include Sean Cunningham, U.S. chair of the firm's patent litigation practice, and fellow Wilmington of counsel Stephanie O'Byrne (who joined with him in 2022 from Potter Anderson). If the relevant firm is Shaw Keller, the IP litigation leadership is John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, and Nathan R. Hoeschen. No individual Chambers or IAM ranking was verified for Castellano; his only ranking‑type recognition appearing in the sources reviewed is Super Lawyers "Rising Stars" (Delaware, 2013–2016) and 2017 Delaware Super Lawyers for IP litigation, which is a peer‑review listing rather than a firm ranking.