Entralta

I'll start by verifying what's publicly available about this firm.

Let me dig into the named attorney and any litigation footprint.

Now let me check the outcomes of the identified cases and any PTAB activity.

Entralta, P.C. — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Entralta, P.C. is a small intellectual property boutique and "IP management company" headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California (1560‑1 Newbury Road, Suite 327), with an older correspondence address in Chula Vista, CA appearing in 2019 TTAB filings. It was founded in 2012 by Peter D. Weinstein, Ph.D., J.D., and its public materials describe it as a full‑service firm offering patent prosecution, IP transactions and licensing, portfolio due diligence and valuation, and general civil and IP litigation. Sourcing note: I found no AmLaw, Chambers, Vault or Law360 firm ranking for Entralta, and no reliable public attorney‑count or revenue figure. All available indicators — the USPTO prosecution docket, the small named professional roster (Peter Weinstein; VP Justin G. Sanders; counsel James F. Fleming; COO Tamara S. Rodriguez) — point to a lean regional IP shop, not a BigLaw or national litigation firm. This should be characterized as a boutique with a prosecution‑first practice rather than a trial shop.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's own practice description claims technical breadth — life sciences, high tech, medical devices, communications, consumer products, and prosecution experience spanning biotech/pharma, chemistry and materials, computer hardware and software, networking, electrical and mechanical engineering, and nanotechnology. The verifiable record skews heavily toward life sciences and medical technology. An independent prosecution‑analytics profile of the firm's USPTO docket (n=774 applications) reports top CPC subclasses of A61K, A61P and C07K, an 82.9% allowance rate, and a client mix including Oculogenex, Liquid Biosciences, Watershed Medical, CLS Therapeutics, Tracklet, Innomed Technologies, Dawako Medtech and King's College London. Litigation‑side subject matter visible in public filings is correspondingly life‑sciences and diagnostics: a method‑of‑treatment patent (IVIG for Bell's palsy) and digital‑pathology slide scanning. There is no evidence in the record of Wi‑Fi/standards litigation, semiconductor litigation, or FRAND work.

Side preference. Entralta appears almost exclusively on the plaintiff / patent‑owner enforcement side, and specifically for small IP‑holding companies and individual inventors rather than large operating companies. The authoritative case list reflects 1 tracked appearance, 100% plaintiff side, in a counsel role with zero defendant‑side appearances. Public court records are consistent: counsel of record for plaintiffs in InnoMed Technologies v. UCLA Health (C.D. Cal.) and for Optrascan in its slide‑scanner patent suits. It is not a PAE‑focused volume filer — the docket is too thin for that — but the posture is unmistakably enforcement/assertion rather than operating‑company defense. The firm's prosecution practice appears to feed this enforcement capability, and its "Proactively Executed Prosecution (PEP)" materials explicitly emphasize preserving claim breadth so that clients "can make money through licensing."

Notable cases and outcomes. The most prominent publicly documented matters are: (1) InnoMed Technologies, Inc. v. UCLA Health and Akira Ishiyama, No. 2:23‑cv‑05268 (C.D. Cal., filed July 3, 2023) — a willful‑infringement suit over U.S. Patent No. 11,083,789 ("IVIG Treatments for Bell's Palsy"), with Peter D. Weinstein and James F. Fleming as plaintiff's counsel. The case did not reach the merits: the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on January 2, 2024 for lack of prosecution after InnoMed failed to respond to a final order to show cause. This is a procedural dismissal only — no validity or infringement ruling, and no bar to refiling. (2) Optrascan, Inc. assertion campaigns over slide storage/scanning patents (e.g., W.D. Tex. No. 1:23‑cv‑00733 against Morphle Labs‑related defendants; N.D. Cal. activity in November 2024), in which Entralta attorneys appear. (3) NuPulseCV, Inc. v. DesignPlex Biomedical, LLC (N.D. Tex., June 2024) — a Defend Trade Secrets Act matter. (4) El‑Ghazawi v. Optelligence LLC (E.D. Va., Dec. 2023) — contract dispute. I found no reported verdict, judgment, settlement amount, or Federal Circuit appeal attributable to the firm. Because the single tracked appearance in the authoritative list is unnamed, I cannot tie it to any specific docket; the cases above are inferred from public documents naming Entralta attorneys.

PTAB / IPR practice. I found no evidence of an IPR, PGR or CBM filing or defense practice for this firm — no PTAB proceedings naming Entralta as counsel appear in the public record I searched, and the firm does not advertise a post‑grant practice. One TTAB proceeding does appear (Cancellation No. 92070993, LeggUp Inc., filed by Justin G. Sanders of Entralta P.C., withdrawn with consent in June 2019), which shows trademark‑office contested work but says nothing about patent trial practice. Any statement that Entralta has an IPR practice would be unsupported.

Key personnel, and an important data caveat. The figures supported by the firm's own site and public records are Peter D. Weinstein (founder/CEO; Ph.D. in immunology, former Senior Patent Counsel at Baxter Healthcare, former associate at Fish & Richardson and Brobeck, Phlegor & Harrison, and a former USPTO examiner — the firm's principal lawyer on the InnoMed patent suit) and Justin G. Sanders (Vice President, leads the high‑tech and mechanical device group, registered patent attorney) and James F. Fleming (patent and IP counsel; co‑counsel in InnoMed). Caveat on the roster: the authoritative case list attributes the firm's single tracked appearance to "Stanton D. Weinstein." Public records indicate a Stanton D. Weinstein is a Pennsylvania‑based, now‑retired IP attorney (longtime in‑house counsel at Lockheed Martin, former Navy patent program) who appears not to be affiliated with Entralta. The firm's principal is Peter D. Weinstein. These may be distinct individuals conflated in the underlying data, and the name/attribution should be verified against the source docket before it is relied on in any filing or client communication.