McCabe Ali

I'll research this firm before drafting.

Let me dig into the tracked case and the firm's PTAB work.

McCabe & Ali LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. McCabe & Ali LLP (styled "McCabe//Ali") is a small, specialized intellectual property boutique formed on August 3, 2020, when solo practitioners Michael E. McCabe, Jr. and Emil J. Ali merged their practices. Public listings show two office locations — Potomac, Maryland (the Washington, D.C. area, where founding filings for PTAB matters list McCabe) and Cerritos, California (Los Angeles area). This is not a BigLaw firm, an AmLaw-ranked firm, or a general patent litigation shop: it is a two-name-partner ethics and professional-responsibility boutique. Its Chambers USA presence is a "Spotlight" profile (not a Band ranking) in Intellectual Property, and Chambers describes the group as "a top IP firm recognized for its ability to handle IP ethics," with particular strength in USPTO investigations and enforcement actions. Reuters Legal reported the 2020 launch and characterized the firm's focus as USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) investigations, disciplinary trials, and federal court appeals.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's core competency is the intersection of IP law and legal ethics, not technology-area patent litigation. Its stated practice covers defense of patent and trademark practitioners in OED and state bar investigations and disciplinary trials, malpractice defense, law firm risk management (subject-matter conflicts, lateral hiring, docketing review), admissions and moral-character work, and expert testimony on the standard of conduct. The technology exposure in its litigation-adjacent work comes through the clients and matters it handles rather than through a semiconductor, pharma, or Wi-Fi standards practice; McCabe's own background is mechanical engineering (B.S., University of Maryland) with prior in-house engineering experience at NASA Goddard, and his practice history includes patent prosecution and validity/infringement opinions. The firm also does a substantial volume of CLE and publishing on inequitable conduct, privilege and work product in patent litigation, and ethics in PTAB proceedings.

Side preference. The tracked data show one appearance, on the plaintiff side, in a local-counsel role. That appearance is Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Capital One Financial Corporation, No. 8:14-cv-00111 (D. Md.), where Michael E. McCabe, Jr. is listed as Maryland local counsel for the Intellectual Ventures plaintiffs alongside lead counsel Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson. Read carefully: this is a single engagement in which the client happened to be a large patent-holding entity (Intellectual Ventures), not evidence of an NPE/PAE-plaintiff practice model. The firm's actual center of gravity is defensive — representing attorneys and IP practitioners as respondents against bar and OED charges. Outside that niche, no pattern of representing either operating companies or patent monetizers can be established from the available record, and none should be assumed.

Notable matters and PTAB/IPR posture. The IV v. Capital One docket is the most consequential litigation item. There, Judge Paul W. Grimm of the District of Maryland rejected a Special Master's recommendation and granted the defendants summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as to the '081 and '002 patents (Aug. 31, 2015 opinion), with the '409 and '084 patents also found invalid; the case was part of the broader Intellectual Ventures/Capital One dispute, including an earlier E.D. Va. action in which the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement (792 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and antitrust counterclaims were dismissed. Note that McCabe's involvement predates the current firm — he was at Funk & Bolton during that engagement, so the tracked "appearance" is attributable to McCabe individually rather than to McCabe & Ali as an entity. I was unable to independently verify the specific 2017 Federal Circuit outcome for the D. Md. appeal within this research, and it should be confirmed against the docket before citation. On the PTAB side, the firm has no documented standalone IPR/PGR filing practice: its known PTAB footprint is Michael McCabe appearing as backup counsel for petitioner Satco Products, Inc. in IPR2020-00695 (Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California) alongside Greenberg Traurig, plus a recurring ethics-CLE role advising PTAB practitioners. Chambers highlights one verified public result — a defense verdict in a USPTO disciplinary trial for a law firm partner charged with multiple counts arising from allegedly fraudulent IP applications. A September 2026 N.D. Ohio ruling denying a patent attorney's preliminary injunction against his USPTO discipline proceeding lists the firm among law firms mentioned; the firm's exact role is not confirmed by the available coverage.

Key partners. Two partners are reliably documented. Michael E. McCabe, Jr. (managing partner; Potomac/D.C.) is a registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 37,182), former partner and risk-management chair at Oblon, with prior roles at McDermott Will & Emery and Funk & Bolton, past chair of the ABA IP Section's Professional Issues Division, founder of the IPethics & INsights blog, and recognized in The Best Lawyers in America for Litigation–Intellectual Property and Litigation–Patent (since 2011). Emil J. Ali (partner; Cerritos/L.A.) is a registered patent attorney and former OED attorney, an adjunct professor of legal ethics at Lewis & Clark Law School, a past chair of the ABA IP Law Section's Ethics and Professionalism Committee, and a member of APRL's board. Chambers identifies Michael McCabe as the firm's key contact. I found no reliably sourced third or fourth IP litigation partner, and the firm's own roster does not indicate a larger litigation bench.