Garon IP

I'll research this firm before drafting.

Let me dig deeper on the firm and attorney.

Garon IP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Note on sourcing: This firm has an unusually thin public footprint. The structured case list (one tracked appearance) is authoritative; I was unable to locate a firm website, Chambers/AmLaw/Vault profile, Law360 firm page, or a verified partner roster through web search. Statements below are flagged accordingly rather than filled in.

Firm overview. Garon IP is best characterized, on the available record, as a very small plaintiff-side IP litigation shop rather than a BigLaw firm or a large IP boutique. I could not verify its headquarters, office footprint, attorney headcount, or any AmLaw/Chambers ranking — no reliable source surfaced for these. Any firm-size or ranking claim should be treated as unconfirmed. The sole attorney identified in the tracked matters is Justin Kurtis Garon, who appears as lead counsel.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's tracked work is in software and web-communications technology, not the Wi-Fi-standards, pharma, semiconductor, or mechanical spaces. The single tracked case involves real-time, multi-responder web chat/omnichannel customer-service systems — specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 11,349,787 and 11,855,937 (and, per the complaint analysis, additional patents including the '183 and '597 patents) directed to two-way real-time communication across electronic platforms, including hand-off from an automated "virtual responder" to a human agent. Accused functionality was Kroger's online customer-service chat system.

Side preference. The firm's profile is entirely plaintiff-side: 1 plaintiff appearance, 0 defendant appearances, and 1 lead-counsel role. The client, Disintermediation Services, Inc., functions as a patent-holder/assertion entity — this is NPE/PAE-style enforcement rather than a defense practice for operating companies. That said, a single data point is a weak basis for generalizing; the sample does not establish a sustained campaign, and I found no verified record of a broader filing program by this firm.

Notable cases. Disintermediation Services, Inc. v. The Kroger Co. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00525 (E.D. Tex.) — filed July 11, 2024, 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement, naming The Kroger Co. and Kroger Texas L.P. One public docket aggregator lists the case as closed; I could not verify the disposition (settlement, dismissal, or otherwise) from a primary source, and no verdict or Federal Circuit appeal is documented. Treat the outcome as unconfirmed pending review of the docket and any dismissal order.

PTAB / IPR practice. No IPR, PGR, or other PTAB activity by this firm was identified. I also found no public report supporting any IPR filing or defense volume. Given the firm's single tracked district-court appearance, there is no evidentiary basis to describe a PTAB practice.

Key partners. Only one attorney is reliably identified — Justin Kurtis Garon (lead counsel). I could not verify additional IP litigation partners, their bar admissions, or prior firm affiliations from a firm site or industry ranking. If a fuller roster or practice-leader list is needed, it should be confirmed directly with the firm or via PACER docket counsel listings.

Bottom line: Garon IP presents as a solo or near-solo, plaintiff-side patent enforcement practice with one tracked case in web-communications software. Most of the standard firm-profile indicators (size, footprint, rankings, partner bench, PTAB volume) are unverified and should not be asserted without primary-source confirmation.