Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith

I'll research Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith's IP litigation practice before drafting.

Let me dig into the firm's IP practice page, key partners, and notable case outcomes.

Let me verify a few more details: the firm's own IP practice description, notable outcomes in the tracked cases, and any Chambers/legal rankings for IP.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP is a national, full-service litigation firm headquartered at 633 West Fifth Street in Los Angeles, founded in 1979–80. It is a large general-practice platform rather than an IP boutique: third-party headcount trackers put it at roughly 1,550–1,570 attorneys across about 50–55 offices in 32 states and D.C., ranking among the largest U.S. firms by headcount (NLJ 500 top 20; Am Law 200 in the low 70s by revenue, with gross revenue reported near $760M for 2024). Note a sourcing discrepancy: one firm job posting described it as an "Am Law 100 firm," while third-party profiles place it in the Am Law 200 — the latter is the better-supported figure. Best Lawyers' 2026 "Best Law Firms" Tier 1 national rankings for the firm cover appellate, commercial litigation, insurance, construction and labor/employment litigation, mass torts and transportation — IP is not among its nationally Tier 1-listed categories.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's work sits in its national Intellectual Property & Technology Practice, which describes itself as representing both plaintiffs and defendants in patent and IP litigation in district courts, before the PTAB, the ITC, the TTAB and the Federal Circuit. The tracked docket and attorney bios show an emphasis on consumer products and mechanical/electrical devices (notably percussive massage guns, smartphone accessories, sporting goods, medical devices, mosaic tile, homeware), alongside software and hardware, digital security/encryption, cloud-computing infrastructure, financial services/banking technology, and pharmaceuticals (Hatch-Waxman and cGMP disputes). The firm also handles trademark, copyright, trade secret, Lanham Act and Section 337 matters. I found no evidence the firm is known for Wi-Fi/standards-essential-patent work; the "Fractus" appearance (below) is an antenna-patent defense, not a standards practice.

Side preference. The firm genuinely works both sides. The tracked appearances split evenly at 4 plaintiff / 4 defendant, and the practice group's own language — "successfully represents both plaintiffs and defendants in patent and intellectual property litigation" — matches that. Its most visible patent work has been enforcement-side for consumer-product companies (Hyper Ice) and, in the Munich Re America Services v. Intellectual Ventures matter, plaintiff-side against a well-known patent aggregator. In parallel, it does substantial defense work for operating companies and financial institutions (e.g., its profile describes defending Liberty Mutual and Comerica against Intellectual Ventures claims and pursuing related IPRs). This is not an NPE/PAE-oriented contingency shop.

Notable tracked matters. The largest cluster is the Hyper Ice litigation campaign in the C.D. Cal., in which Lawrence R. LaPorte (L.A.) appears as plaintiff's counsel asserting patents such as U.S. 12,036,174 and 11,857,482 against Therabody, JOICOM/RENPHO, MerchSource/Sharper Image and others. These cases were consolidated into Hyper Ice, Inc. v. JOICOM Corp. (8:24-cv-00098), and several follow-on retailer suits were stayed pending that lead case; the patents are also the subject of multiple Therabody-filed PGRs (PGR2024-00053, PGR2025-00013) at the PTAB. Other tracked matters include Munich Re America Services Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures (offensive, lead counsel Jonathan D. Goins) and Fractus, S.A. v. Verizon Connect Inc. (defense). I could not verify a public verdict, injunction or settlement figure in the Fractus/Verizon Connect or Munich Re matters from available sources, so no outcome should be assumed. Among publicly verifiable results, the firm states it obtained a general exclusion order in the ITC percussive-massage-device investigation and prevailed in a precedential Federal Circuit appeal for Spigen in a smartphone-accessory patent case.

PTAB / IPR practice. The firm has a real, if not independently quantified, PTAB practice. It has prosecuted IPRs, PGRs and CBMs both offensively and defensively — attorney bios list IPRs for Liberty Mutual, Comerica, TD Bank and BBVA Compass, multiple PGR defenses for Hyperice, and an early IPR petition for Dexcowin Global (2016). The firm publishes Federal Circuit/PTAB client alerts but I found no public report giving aggregate annual IPR filing volume, so any scale figure would be speculation. On personnel claims: the firm's January 2025 announcement states that new Minneapolis partner Larina Alton has been lead counsel in "more than 21" IPRs without a Final Decision loss — that is the firm's characterization, not an independently verified statistic.

Practice leadership. Publicly sourced leaders include Joshua D. Curry (Atlanta) and Jonathan D. Goins (Atlanta), co-chairs of the Intellectual Property & Technology Practice; Daniel C. DeCarlo (Los Angeles), a co-chair/former chair of the group; and Lawrence R. LaPorte (Los Angeles), a partner who joined from Manatt and anchors the Hyper Ice matters. Goins, DeCarlo and colleagues appear in the World Trademark Review's 2026 WTR 1000 for trademark work, which is the strongest third-party IP recognition I could confirm. Other patent-side names in the practice include Larina Alton (Minneapolis), Maxwell Petersen (Chicago, AIA/PTO trial proceedings) and Alyssa Sandrowitz (Denver); from the tracked docket, Danielle Cole (Fractus/Verizon Connect) and François Ecclesiaste (Minneapolis, registered patent attorney with IPR experience) also appear. Attorneys Keith A. Walter, Jr. and Maliheh Zare appear on the tracked docket but I could not source their IP credentials reliably.