Maschoff Brennan Gilmore & Israelsen

I'll research this firm before writing the summary.

Let me dig into the tracked case and the firm's PTAB/Chambers profile.

Let me verify attorney roles and the notable litigation results.

Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP (dba Maschoff Brennan) — Note on naming: the firm practice has appeared under several iterations, including Maschoff Brennan Laycock Gilmore Israelsen & Wright PLLC and Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Wright PLLC; the tracked-case label "Maschoff Brennan Gilmore & Israelsen" corresponds to an earlier form. The current legal name follows the January 1, 2024 merger with Mauriel Kapouytian Woods. Headquartered in Park City, Utah (1389 Center Drive), with additional offices in Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Irvine/Orange County, and New York City — six offices, roughly 45–50+ attorneys per the firm's own announcements and its Chambers USA profile. This is an IP boutique with a commercial-litigation arm, not a BigLaw general-practice firm; no AmLaw 200 ranking was found, and none is claimed here. Chambers USA ranks it Band 1 for Intellectual Property in Utah (2025 and 2026 guides), and IAM Patent 1000 gives it a Silver firm ranking for Utah (2024–2026).

IP litigation specialty. Chambers describes Maschoff Brennan as "a preeminent IP boutique" that is "particularly known for its litigation strength, with notable expertise in information technology," active in both prosecution and enforcement and "well placed to handle cases in the appellate stages." The tracked and publicly reported case mix is consistent with that: consumer IoT and smart-home hardware and video surveillance/doorbell systems (the Vivint/SB IP Holdings dispute), audiovisual media delivery (Equil IP Holding's suit against Akamai Technologies, noted in Chambers), fitness and exercise equipment (Icon Health & Fitness, including Peloton v. Icon), and photovoltaic connector technology (Voltage LLC v. Shoals Technologies at the PTAB, tied to ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1365). IAM and firm materials also point to software/computer, electronics, mechanical, AI and quantum-computing prosecution depth. The firm's docket history shows a real ITC and appellate footprint alongside district court work.

Side preference. The structured data here is thin and should be read cautiously: one tracked appearance, on the plaintiff side, zero on the defense side. That single matter — Vivint Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLC — was a declaratory-judgment action in which the firm's client, Vivint (a Provo, Utah smart-home operating company), sued a patent-holding entity. Functionally that is accused-infringer-side work framed as a plaintiff filing, not NPE enforcement. Publicly reported matters point in both directions — Chambers cites the firm representing Equil IP Holding as a patent-holder plaintiff against Akamai, while dockets show it representing patent owners defending their claims at the PTAB. On the record available, the firm is best characterized as a two-sided IP practice anchored on the operating-company side rather than as a volume filer for NPEs/PAEs; the single tracked data point is too small a sample to establish a durable preference.

Notable matters. The most prominent tracked case is Vivint Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLC (originally C.D. Cal. 8:22-cv-00034, transferred to E.D. Tex. 4:22-cv-00648), a declaratory-judgment action over six patents directed to video doorbell, IP camera, and home-automation technology; the case closed in August 2025 on a non-merits basis. Its companion, SB IP Holdings v. Vivint Smart Home (E.D. Tex. 4:21-cv-00912), produced an October 2023 jury verdict of $45.4 million for willful infringement, which the judge declined to enhance in August 2024 (Law360). The parallel PTAB campaign (IPR2022-00810 through -00814, -01352, -01364, -01365, and -01449) generated Federal Circuit appeals Nos. 24-1271 through 24-2189, all dismissed by joint stipulation on July 10, 2025. Important caveat: the IPR petitioner counsel of record in those proceedings were Quinn Emanuel and Foley & Lardner, not Maschoff Brennan — the firm's tracked role was on the district court side. Also note that the tracked-case list attributes the Vivint matter to Sarah Casey, Richard C. Gilmore, and Andrew A. Noble.

PTAB/IPR practice and key personnel. The firm maintains an active post-grant practice and describes "particular success in the appeal of inter partes reviews," with experience before the PTAB, ITC, the Federal Circuit, and the TTAB. Its PTAB docket stretches back at least to CBM2014-00139 and IPR2014-01242/2017-00493 and continues through IPR2024-00876 (Voltage LLC v. Shoals Technologies), where the firm represented the patent owner. Petitions and powers of attorney list R. Parrish Freeman and Eric L. Maschoff as lead and back-up counsel, with John T. Gadd and David T. Call also involved. I found no public aggregate report quantifying the firm's annual IPR/PGR filings or win rate, so no scale figure is offered. Practice leadership is reliably sourced to Chambers USA and IAM Patent 1000: Richard C. Gilmore, Eric L. Maschoff (founding partner; software/computing background), and R. Burns Israelsen each hold individual Chambers and IAM Patent 1000 rankings; Kirk Harris (also managing shareholder) and C.J. Veverka are Chambers-ranked for IP litigation, with Harris cited for trade secret, patent, and copyright work. Sherman Kahn (New York) received a first-time national Chambers ranking in international arbitration in 2026. Information on Sarah Casey and Andrew A. Noble is limited in the sources reviewed.

Sources: mabr.com (firm announcements, practice pages, merger details); Chambers USA — Intellectual Property, Utah (Maschoff Brennan firm and individual profiles); IAM Patent 1000 (2024–2026); Law360 case coverage; PatSnap litigation summaries; Federal Circuit order, SB IP Holdings LLC v. Vivint, Inc., Nos. 24-1271 et al. (July 10, 2025); PTAB filings via USPTO PTACTS and Docket Alarm.