Eastman & Smith

I'll research this firm and its patent litigation footprint before drafting.

Let me verify the case representation, IPR outcomes, and attorney profiles.

Eastman & Smith — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Eastman & Smith Ltd. is a full-service regional firm founded in 1844 and headquartered at One SeaGate in Toledo, Ohio. It maintains additional offices in Columbus and Findlay, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan, and announced a Cleveland office in May 2026 — its fifth overall. The firm reports 75+ attorneys (U.S. News lists roughly 40 partners and 62 lawyers), placing it in the mid-sized regional commercial firm category rather than BigLaw or an IP boutique. Its Chambers USA 2026 Ohio rankings are in M&A and White Collar Crime & Investigations; it has no Chambers or Legal 500 ranking in patent litigation, and no AmLaw 200 placement is evident.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's published IP practice is primarily prosecution- and portfolio-oriented: U.S. and international patent preparation and prosecution, patentability/validity/infringement opinions, licensing, IP diligence in M&A, plus trademark, copyright, trade-secret and TTAB work. The practice page describes litigation support (claim evaluation, budgeting, trial support) rather than a standalone patent trial group. The firm does not market a technology-vertical specialty such as Wi-Fi/standards, semiconductors, or pharma patent litigation. The only tracked patent case is a mechanical/consumer-products matter — urinal anti-splash devices (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,036,154 and 10,294,649) — which aligns with the firm's manufacturing-heavy Northwest Ohio client base and its historical strength in product-liability defense for manufacturers.

Side preference. Across tracked appearances the firm sits entirely on the defense side (0 plaintiff, 1 defendant), and in the single tracked matter its role is local counsel only. That single data point cannot support a conclusion that the firm is a standing defense-side patent litigation shop; the more accurate characterization is that it serves as Ohio local counsel for out-of-state defendants needing Northern District of Ohio counsel, and litigates IP matters (chiefly trademark, copyright and trade secrets) as part of its broader business-litigation practice.

Notable tracked case and outcomes. Sanastar, Inc. v. Fresh Products LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00418 (N.D. Ohio, Toledo Div., Judge Jack Zouhary), filed March 3, 2025, is a §271 infringement action by Sanastar (d/b/a WizKid Products) against Fresh Products over the "Tsunami" anti-splash device, with the complaint alleging a former contract-manufacturing relationship and a "knock-off" of plaintiff's "Splash Hog" product. Carrie L. Urrutia of Eastman & Smith appears for defendant Fresh Products as local counsel; the complaint was filed by plaintiff's counsel Mark Johnson. The docket remains open with no reported verdict, judgment, or Federal Circuit activity. Beyond this case, the firm's verifiable IP litigation results are in trademark/copyright, not patents — e.g., a willful-infringement jury verdict in Mor-Dall Enterprises (Dark Horse Brewing) v. Dark Horse Distillery, a $9 million counterfeiting award as co-counsel for Tommy Hilfiger, and the Rosa Parks v. LaFace Records publicity-rights matter (affirmed in part, 329 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2003)).

PTAB / IPR practice. There is no evidence the firm maintains a meaningful IPR/PGR practice. In the Sanastar matter, the IPR petitions were filed by Fresh Products, LLC — IPR2025-01339 on the '154 patent (filed July 23, 2025) and IPR2025-01366 on the '649 patent (filed July 31, 2025) — but the practitioner listed for petitioner in third-party PTAB databases is not an Eastman & Smith attorney, and no firm attorney is identified in either proceeding. Third-party aggregators (Ex Parte AI Lab) show IPR2025-01339 with an institution-decision date of November 20, 2025 and a status of "discretionary denial"; I could not confirm that outcome against the PTAB's own records, so treat it as unverified.

Key IP contacts. Carrie A. Johnson (Toledo) is the firm's most visible IP lawyer — a trademark/copyright and unfair-competition practitioner named to the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global IP Lawyers list, with pharma, building-materials, apparel and beverage clients. Stephen E. Chappelear (Columbus) is listed in Super Lawyers for intellectual property litigation and business litigation. Claire Griffin (Toledo) is recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for Litigation–Intellectual Property. Carrie L. Urrutia and Jade L. Robinson are the attorneys of record on the tracked patent matter and appear to be general/business litigators rather than patent specialists. Note that none of these attorneys is publicly profiled as a first-chair patent trial lawyer, and no patent-specific attorney counts or revenue figures are available from reliable sources.