Hatch Law

I'll research this firm before drafting.

Firm overview. Hatch Law, PC — also operating as the Law Office of Ryan E. Hatch, P.C. — is a Los Angeles intellectual property and civil litigation boutique founded in 2016 by Ryan E. Hatch. Its listed office is 13323 W. Washington Blvd. (Suite 100/302), Los Angeles, CA 90066, in the Culver City/West LA area; public filings also show a downtown Los Angeles address of record. There is no evidence of additional offices, and the firm does not appear in AmLaw, Chambers, Vault, or Legal 500 rankings — it is an owner-operated IP boutique rather than a BigLaw or national patent shop. Third-party business-data aggregators estimate 11–20 employees, but that figure is an unverified commercial estimate; the public record shows a firm built around a single named principal, with co-counsel used for litigation scale. No revenue or attorney-count figure should be treated as reliable.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's own practice description covers patent, trademark, and copyright litigation, trade secret and business disputes, plus prosecution of patent and trademark applications. Hatch is a registered patent attorney with a computer-science degree (BYU) and prior software-engineering experience at Corel and Motorola, and he describes his technical experience as spanning software, electronics, semiconductors, mobile devices, lighting equipment, and nutritional/health-supplement products. The tracked docket corroborates that mix: Wi-Fi and 802.11 wireless-networking standards work (CommWorks Solutions v. TRENDnet, asserting Wi-Fi Protected Setup and Wi-Fi Multimedia functionality against consumer routers), and biometric facial-recognition/3D liveness software (the FaceTec matters). The firm's founder also spent time at Pillsbury Winthrop, Latham & Watkins, and as a partner at Liner LLP, so the practice is oriented toward technology-heavy defense and licensing disputes rather than pharma or life sciences.

Side preference. The firm works both sides but leans slightly toward the defense: of five tracked appearances, three are defendant-side and two plaintiff-side. The split is functionally meaningful, however. The plaintiff-side engagements are for patent-monetization entities — Wi-LAN (a long-established licensor) and CommWorks Solutions (a wireless-networking licensing entity) — and in the CommWorks matter Hatch served as local counsel supporting out-of-state lead counsel, not as lead trial counsel. The defendant-side work is for operating companies: iProov Ltd. and Jumio Corporation in the FaceTec liveness-detection litigation. The consistent pattern is a small, technically credentialed firm that defends operating companies and also supplies California local-counsel and co-counsel capacity to plaintiffs in patent-infringement suits.

Notable tracked matters. The most prominent is the FaceTec litigation. In FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov Ltd. (D. Nev. No. 2:21-cv-02252), Hatch Law represents iProov against claims that its Liveness Assurance product infringes FaceTec's facial-recognition patents, along with breach-of-contract and tortious-interference claims; the court granted iProov a partial stay of the patent and non-patent claims pending inter partes review, while declining to stay iProov's own counterclaim. In the related N.D. Cal. action, FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corporation (No. 3:24-cv-03623), Hatch Law appeared for Jumio as a nonparty resisting a FaceTec document subpoena and filed the declaration supporting iProov's motion to intervene; that case generated collateral rulings including the March 2025 disqualification of Perkins Coie as Jumio's counsel (a bid to disqualify successor counsel Morrison & Foerster was denied in July 2025). In June 2026 the PTAB issued final written decisions upholding all challenged claims of four FaceTec patents (IPR2025-00106 through -00109) — a win for FaceTec led by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, and therefore an adverse outcome on the merits for the clients Hatch Law serves, though Hatch Law was not the firm running those IPRs. On the plaintiff side, CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. TRENDnet, Inc. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:23-cv-08048) ended in dismissal with prejudice on a joint request, with each side bearing its own fees and costs — a settlement that resolved the case without any claim-construction or validity adjudication. Details of the tracked Wi-LAN v. TCT Mobile US matter could not be verified from public sources.

PTAB/IPR practice — limited, case-specific. There is no public report indicating a scaled IPR/PGR filing program. Hatch Law's own practice description and Hatch's professional profiles state that he handles USPTO post-grant proceedings, including inter partes review and reexamination, and his name appears in PTAB-related filings (including a 2020 post-grant review involving Pinn, Inc. and Apple). But in the firm's highest-profile PTAB-adjacent dispute — the four FaceTec IPRs — the petitions and the patent-owner defense were handled by Perkins Coie/Morrison & Foerster and Finnegan respectively, not by Hatch Law. The IPR work should be characterized as within the firm's stated capability rather than as a flagship practice line.

Practice leadership. Publicly verifiable leadership is effectively one person: Ryan E. Hatch (also docketed as Ryan Ephraim Hatch), founder, owner, and sole named principal, a California-barred registered patent attorney (admitted 2005) and former Latham & Watkins senior associate and Liner LLP partner. Janson Westmoreland appears as counsel of record alongside Hatch in the Wi-LAN matter but could not be confirmed as a Hatch Law attorney from firm-site or industry sources, so his affiliation should not be asserted. No other IP litigation partners at the firm are reliably sourced.

Sourcing note: firm identity, address, and founder background are supported by court filings, State Bar/Avvo/bar-association listings, and aggregated professional profiles; the case descriptions rest on PACER/CourtListener dockets, PTAB records, and contemporaneous trade coverage (Biometric Update, TMCnet/PRNewswire). No AmLaw, Chambers, or Vault ranking for this firm was located, and no verified revenue or headcount figures exist in the public record.