D'Souza Law

I'll research this firm before drafting.

D'Souza Law — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Verification note up front: This summary is drawn primarily from the authoritative case list provided, because independent sourcing on this firm is very thin. Searches of the firm name, its two named attorneys, and the tracked case returned no firm website, no Chambers/AmLaw entry, no Law360 firm profile, and no Reuters Legal coverage that I could attribute to "D'Souza Law." Treat the profile items below as unconfirmed unless tied to the case list.

Firm overview. D'Souza Law has a single tracked patent litigation appearance in the dataset. I could not verify a headquarters location, office footprint, attorney count, or any AmLaw/Chambers ranking. On the available record — one matter, two lead-counsel designations — the firm reads as a small shop or solo/small-group practice rather than BigLaw, a national IP boutique, or a recognized regional patent firm. No public indicator of size is available, so I am not characterizing it further.

IP litigation specialty. The entire tracked record is one case: ABC IP, LLC v. J. C. W. LLC, with D'Souza Law on the defense side. The only technology signal comes from similarly named plaintiffs in other public dockets — ABC IP, LLC appears as a patent plaintiff in E.D. Tex. actions involving firearms accessories/triggers, and an "ABC Products" entity asserted a drink-caddy patent (the '840 patent) in N.D. Ill. Neither is confirmed to be the same plaintiff or to involve this firm. I could not verify the subject matter of the 'J.C.W.' matter, so I will not assign this firm a technology specialty (Wi-Fi, pharma, semiconductors, etc.) on the current record.

Side preference. Plaintiff side: 0. Defendant side: 1. The tracked record is defense-only, but a single appearance does not establish an institutional defense practice or indicate a preference for defending operating companies versus NPE/PAE-side work. No conclusion on side preference is supportable at n=1.

Notable cases or outcomes. The only tracked matter is ABC IP, LLC v. J. C. W. LLC (defendant; lead counsel listed as Shane P. D'Souza). I found no public record of a verdict, damages award, Federal Circuit appeal, IPR, or settlement in that case, and no other matters attributable to the firm.

PTAB / IPR practice. No public evidence of an IPR, PGR, or other PTAB practice — no filings attributable to the firm, no reported scale, no client-side or defense-side PTAB track record. Nothing to report.

Key partners / practice leaders. The case list names two attorneys with one appearance each: Shane P. D'Souza (listed as lead counsel on the tracked matter) and Daniel L. Farris (appears once in the attorney roster; the case row itself lists only D'Souza). Neither name resolved to a verifiable IP litigation practice in public search. One caution: a "Daniel L. Farris" is publicly documented as a Chicago technology transactions, privacy, and data center partner (Holland & Knight → Fox Rothschild → K&L Gates → Norton Rose Fulbright → Foley & Lardner as of May 2025) — a technology/privacy lawyer, not a patent litigator, and never associated with any D'Souza firm. That appears to be a name collision, not the attorney in this dataset, and I have not attributed his profile to D'Souza Law.

Bottom line: on the available record, D'Souza Law should be characterized as an unranked, single-appearance defense-side participant in patent litigation with no independently verifiable size, specialty, PTAB practice, or notable outcomes. If a more current firm website or docket pull is needed before client-facing use, that verification has not been completed here.