Loeb & Loeb

I'll research Loeb & Loeb's IP litigation practice before drafting.

Now let me verify the specific tracked cases and additional firm details.

Loeb & Loeb LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Loeb & Loeb LLP is a full-service firm headquartered in Los Angeles, with offices in New York, Chicago, Nashville, Washington DC, San Francisco, Beijing and Hong Kong; the firm reports approximately 450 lawyers. It is not an IP boutique — IP sits within a broader media, entertainment, technology and corporate platform. Law.com reported that Loeb entered the Am Law 100 for the first time in the 2021 rankings, at approximately No. 99–100 by gross revenue. Chambers USA 2026 ranks the firm Band 3 in Illinois for Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade Secrets, and the firm's separate Patent Litigation & Counseling department appears in IAM Patent 1000's 2026 edition in three categories: Illinois – Litigation (Bronze), Illinois – Prosecution (Recommended) and China: Foreign (Bronze).

IP litigation specialty. The firm maintains a named Patent Litigation & Counseling department covering infringement, validity and enforceability work in district court, at the ITC and before the PTAB. Firm and attorney profiles describe technical coverage in telecommunications and wireless devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology (including Hatch-Waxman), medical devices, semiconductors, computer software and cloud technologies, AI/machine learning, and mechanical/consumer products; the firm also lists Section 337 investigations among its IP capabilities. The two tracked matters reflect that breadth but only narrowly: the saddle-hunting-equipment dispute is a mechanical/consumer-products case, and the Trinity matter is a software patent-eligibility (Section 101) dispute. Notably, I found no public evidence of Loeb work in Wi-Fi standards or standards-essential-patent litigation, so that technology area should not be attributed to the firm on the current record.

Side preference. The structured case list shows two patent appearances, both plaintiff-side, and zero defendant-side — an unusual profile for a general-practice firm of this size, where patent dockets are typically defense-weighted. That asymmetry rests on a sample of only two matters and should be treated as weak evidence rather than a demonstrated practice posture. The CRü v. Tethrd LLC entry also needs verification: the parallel public docket (Tethrd, LLC v. CRUZR Saddles LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00076, M.D. Tenn.) lists Loeb attorneys Keane A. Barger, Brenton R. Babcock, Timothy L. Warnock and Dan Liu, and shows Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. denying the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion in May 2025 — the party alignment in the tracked entry does not obviously match that docket, and the discrepancy is unresolved on the available record.

Notable cases. Trinity Info Media, LLC v. The League App, Inc. (filed 2021) is part of Trinity Info Media's multi-defendant licensing campaign over U.S. Patent No. 9,087,321; the campaign's flagship appeal, Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023), affirmed dismissal under Alice step one and held that claim construction and fact discovery are not prerequisites to a Section 101 ruling at the pleading stage. That Federal Circuit decision arises from a related case, not the tracked League App matter, and I found no public confirmation that Loeb appeared for Trinity in the League App action — so the tracked plaintiff-side attribution should be independently verified. The CRü/Tethrd saddle dispute is a competitor-on-competitor infringement case that survived a motion to dismiss in May 2025; no verdict or settlement is publicly reported.

PTAB/IPR practice and key partners. Loeb attorneys do handle post-grant work — practitioner bios cite inter partes review, covered business method review and appeals to the Federal Circuit — and the firm lists "Post Grant Proceedings" among its IP service areas. I found no public report quantifying the firm's IPR/PGR filing volume, so no scale figure can be given. Prominent patent-side lawyers identified in firm and industry sources include William J. Kramer (Chicago; IAM Patent 1000 Silver Tier, Illinois litigation; patent prosecution and portfolio counseling; 30+ years' experience, also an AIA-listed patent mediator), Ryan Hagglund (New York; IAM Patent 1000 Bronze Tier, litigation), William Voller (California; IAM Patent 1000 Bronze Tier, litigation), and Timothy L. Warnock (Nashville; commercial and IP litigator ranked in Chambers USA and Benchmark Litigation, and the lead counsel of record in the tracked Tethrd matter). Former department chair Mark E. Waddell is named in older coverage but should be confirmed as current. A press report dating to Kramer's hire stated the U.S. patent team comprised roughly 30 lawyers and professionals; that figure is dated and I could not confirm it against a current source.

Sources: loeb.com (firm and attorney pages, IAM Patent 1000 announcements); Chambers USA/Global profiles (chambers.com); Law.com Am Law 100 coverage (2021); Legal 500 and JDJournal profiles; PACER Monitor docket for Tethrd, LLC v. CRUZR Saddles LLC; Federal Circuit coverage of Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355 (2023). Figures on lawyer headcount, revenue ranking and patent-team size are as reported by the cited sources and were not independently verified.