Hillyer Legal

I'll verify what's publicly available about this firm before drafting.

Hillyer Legal, PLLC — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Hillyer Legal, PLLC is a Washington, DC–based intellectual property boutique with a single office at 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440, Washington, DC 20015. No second office, AmLaw 100/200, Chambers, or Legal 500 listing could be located for the firm, and third-party business data aggregators place headcount in the 1–10 employee range (a non-authoritative source). On the available public record, this is best described as a small, single-principal DC IP litigation and counseling shop rather than a ranked national firm or a large IP boutique. Its practice description, as published on the firm's website, claims coverage of "all sectors of intellectual property law," including patent, trademark, copyright, trade secrets, false advertising, unfair competition, freedom-to-operate, portfolio management, inter partes review, post-grant review, and ex parte reexamination.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's measurable patent litigation has centered on software and business-method claims — specifically, poll-based matchmaking and networking patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,087,321 and 9,086,685) asserted against online dating and social networking apps. The firm's second identifiable practice concentration is consumer products and nutraceuticals (Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, BPI Sports, ThermoLife), but that work is primarily Lanham Act, false advertising, and trademark/TTAB rather than patent prosecution or patent defense. Principal Gregory L. Hillyer is a USPTO-registered patent attorney with an M.S. in organic chemistry (University of Pittsburgh) and a B.S. in chemistry (SUNY Oswego); older firm-transition press releases describe his experience spanning pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, electronics, telecommunications, and business methods. No semiconductor, Wi-Fi/standards-essential, ANDA/Hatch-Waxman, or mechanical patent litigation work by this firm could be verified.

Side preference. The tracked docket skews plaintiff/patent-owner side: 3 plaintiff-side versus 2 defendant-side appearances, with the firm acting as lead counsel in four matters. That tilt reflects the firm's most substantial identifiable engagement — serving as lead counsel for Trinity Info Media, LLC, a patent owner that Unified Patents publicly characterized as an NPE, in its 2020–2021 licensing and enforcement campaign against operators of online dating apps (Coffee Meets Bagel, Raya App, The League App, Covalent, and Hornet Networks). The firm does appear on the defense side in two tracked matters and in TTAB opposition/cancellation proceedings, so it is a both-sides practice — but it is not a high-volume defense shop for operating companies. One data caveat: the tracked list labels the Trinity Info Media v. The League App matter as defendant-side, while contemporaneous reporting has Trinity as the plaintiff in that litigation; I could not reconcile that discrepancy from public sources.

Notable cases and outcomes. The firm's most prominent patent matter is Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., in which Hillyer appeared for the appellant patent owner. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding the asserted claims directed to the abstract idea of "matching based on questioning" and ineligible under § 101, and rejecting Trinity's argument that claim construction or fact discovery were required before an eligibility ruling — Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023). That decision is now widely cited by defendants in § 101 motion-to-dismiss briefing. The parallel Trinity Info Media v. Hornet Networks action (C.D. Cal. No. 2:21-cv-01351) was resolved by joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal. On the non-patent side, Hillyer Legal represented BPI Sports, LLC in ThermoLife International LLC v. BPI Sports (Fed. Cir. No. 23-1068; decision June 16, 2025), a false-advertising appeal in which the Federal Circuit held no reasonable jury could find the challenged "increase vasodilation" statement literally false. The firm also represented Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals in trademark and false-advertising matters, including an N.D. Ga. action against Prime Hydration that was voluntarily dismissed in 2024 and a TTAB cancellation proceeding withdrawn with prejudice following a 2020 settlement. I found no public record of a patent jury verdict, damages award, ITC action, or Federal Circuit win for the firm on the patent side.

PTAB / IPR practice. The firm advertises IPR, PGR, and ex parte reexamination capability, but I could not locate any public record of an IPR or PGR petition filed by, or defended by, Hillyer Legal — so no scale figure can be responsibly stated. Notably, the only PTAB-adjacent public datapoint is defensive-side: associate Nicholas J. Sullivan's background includes a 2020 legal internship at Unified Patents, the defensive aggregator that ran a PATROLL prior-art bounty against Trinity's '321 patent during the firm's own assertion campaign. That is background, not an IPR credential.

Key personnel. Gregory L. Hillyer is the firm's founder and practice leader, styled in some listings as Director of Litigation. He was admitted in Pennsylvania (2000), Florida (2003), Maryland (2007), and DC (2008), is admitted to the Federal Circuit and Fourth Circuit, and has been selected to DC Super Lawyers (2013–2015, 2019–2025); he previously held partner roles at Novak Druce + Quigg (2010) and Brinks Gilson & Lione's DC office (2016) and has taught as an adjunct professor at American University Washington College of Law. Nicholas J. Sullivan is the firm's associate, admitted in California (2021). No other IP litigation partner at the firm could be reliably identified from public sources; Ashley D. Posner appeared as local counsel in the Hornet matter but is not a Hillyer Legal attorney.

Verification limits: the firm does not appear in AmLaw, Chambers, Legal 500, or Vault rankings, and no reliable revenue or attorney-count figures exist. Office footprint, headcount, and PTAB volume above are drawn from the firm's own description and third-party dockets, not from audited or ranked sources.