Maynard Nexsen

I'll research Maynard Nexsen's IP litigation practice before writing the summary.

Let me dig into the specific PTAB matter and key IP partners.

Let me verify counsel of record in that IPR and check the firm's PTAB footprint and key partners.

Maynard Nexsen — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Maynard Nexsen is a full-service national firm formed on April 1, 2023, through the merger of Birmingham-based Maynard Cooper & Gale and Columbia, S.C.-based Nexsen Pruet. Its headquarters is Birmingham, Alabama, and the merged firm launched with more than 550 lawyers in 23 U.S. offices; the firm's own materials now cite roughly 600 professionals across 24 locations, and a January 2026 firm release references 31 offices nationwide. This is a large regional-to-national general practice platform rather than an IP boutique: ILRG's 2025 attorney-headcount ranking lists Maynard Nexsen at No. 95 with 562 attorneys (310 partners), and Law.com reports the firm debuted at No. 95 on the 2025 Am Law 200. Reported combined revenue at the time of the merger was approximately $300 million (per American Lawyer/Above the Law coverage).

IP litigation specialty. The firm's IP group is broad rather than a single-technology shop. Its own practice description states that IP litigators have handled disputes in electronics, computers (software and artificial intelligence), wireless technologies, fintech, autonomous vehicles (drones and robotics), and consumer products, and that in life sciences the group has handled Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical actions for both branded and generic clients as well as biologics and biosimilars litigation. The firm also cites Section 337 proceedings before the ITC, Federal Circuit appeals, state-law trade secret and licensing disputes, and litigation in the major patent venues (California, Texas, Delaware, New Jersey, New York). Individual attorney bios emphasize pharmaceutical, biosimilar, financial-services technology, and telecom/software matters. There is no publicly documented Wi-Fi standards-essential-patent practice comparable to dedicated SEP boutiques, and the firm's IP group also carries a large prosecution and portfolio-management load (the firm cites more than 1,200 international patent applications filed).

Side preference. On the tracked record, the firm shows one appearance, on the plaintiff/petitioner side (attorney for plaintiff, Melissa C. Neri), and none on the defense side. One data point is far too thin to establish a side preference, and it runs against the firm's public self-description, which presents the group as representing clients "either as the IP owner or as accused of IP infringement," with attorney bios describing substantial defense work for operating companies — including successful defenses of multinational banking, payments, and high-technology companies in patent suits and Hatch-Waxman/biosimilar defense representations. The fair reading is a general-practice IP litigation group that works both sides, weighted toward defense of operating companies in life sciences and financial-services/software technologies, with the single tracked matter falling on the challenger side.

Notable tracked case and outcomes. The one tracked matter is IPR2025-01286, which public PTAB records identify as Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. v. Cloud Byte LLC, challenging claims 1–9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,482,632 ("Abnormality Detection Device," directed to server cooling/filter-clog detection). The petition relied on Hira in view of Shiga; Patent Owner argued settled expectations and Fintiv discretionary denial; the Board denied institution on November 20, 2025 on discretionary-denial grounds and terminated the proceeding. One sourcing caveat: the public power of attorney and docket listings in that IPR name Dell's petitioner counsel as James L. Day, Daniel Callaway, and Winston Liaw, and identify different respondent counsel; I could not independently confirm Melissa C. Neri or Maynard Nexsen as counsel of record on that docket. The firm track record I could verify publicly is in attorney bios, not independently reported decisions — most notably a Delaware plaintiff-side patent bench trial (described as the District of Delaware's first remote Zoom bench trial) resulting in an $11.3 million damages award affirmed on appeal, and a Section 337 defense win in which a Section 101 argument was the sole ground for a no-violation finding, affirmed by the full Commission 4–1. These results are as described in the firm's own attorney profiles.

PTAB / IPR practice. The firm describes a real but not specialty-scale PTAB practice, stating that its IP attorneys have handled "dozens of Inter Partes Review proceedings, ex parte reexaminations and trademark oppositions" in the USPTO — defense-and-challenge work that sits alongside its district court and ITC litigation. Firm attorneys do appear as PTAB counsel (a petition on file at the USPTO lists Bryan L. Baysinger, John Zimmer, and Ben Roxborough of Maynard Nexsen as counsel), although the volume is small relative to dedicated IP boutiques and the large national IP practices. I found no public report benchmarking the firm's annual IPR/PGR filing counts, so no scale figure should be attributed to it beyond the firm's own "dozens" characterization.

Practice leaders. Reliably sourced names from the firm's site and industry directories: Kevin J. Culligan (Shareholder and Managing Shareholder of the New York office; 40-plus years in patent, trade secret, and unfair competition litigation, primarily pharmaceuticals, biosimilars, biotech, and financial-services technology; former Fish & Neave and Goodwin partner; repeatedly listed as an LMG Life Sciences "Life Sciences Star" and Managing IP "IP Star"); Bryan L. Baysinger, identified in a firm release as Chair of the Intellectual Property Practice; Ben Roxborough (Of Counsel, IP litigation — patent, trademark, and false advertising, with prior federal clerkships and the Delaware trial experience noted above); and Marcus Manos (Shareholder, Columbia, S.C., complex and IP litigation). Melissa C. Neri (Birmingham) is the attorney recorded on the firm's single tracked appearance and is listed in directories primarily under general/commercial litigation rather than as an IP practice leader. I did not find a reliably sourced Chambers band ranking for the firm's patent litigation practice, so none is asserted here.