McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter

I'll research this firm before writing. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into the specific case, the attorney, and the firm's IP practice.

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP ("McElroy Deutsch" or "MDM&C") is a full-service regional firm founded in 1983–84 and headquartered at 1300 Mount Kemble Avenue, Morristown, New Jersey (Forbes lists Newark, NJ). Chambers USA (2026) records it as a "Leading firm" with roughly 120 lawyers and 11 offices in 9 states; Best Lawyers lists 13 U.S. locations (Morristown/Newark/Tinton Falls NJ, New York, Rochester, Hartford, Southport, Boston, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Warwick RI, Greenwood Village CO, Tampa FL). Headcount has contracted materially: ILRG reports 135 attorneys and 71 partners in 2025 (down 16.4% year over year) against 251 attorneys in 2018. It is a regional full-service firm, not BigLaw or an IP boutique — ILRG's 2025 headcount ranking places it around #310 nationally, and no AmLaw 100/200 placement surfaced. Its Chambers-ranked departments are litigation, labor & employment, healthcare, and bankruptcy/restructuring — not intellectual property.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's own IP page describes a generalist practice spanning patent and trademark prosecution, trademark oppositions/cancellations, copyright, domain names, trade secrets, licensing, and software agreements, with patent litigation handled inside the broader commercial litigation group rather than by a standalone patent trial department. Technology coverage reflected in the firm's own representative matters is mechanical/consumer-product and mid-tech rather than standards-essential: stroller seat-attachment mechanics (the tracked Baby Jogger matters), power-supply/electronics patents (Comarco Wireless Techs. v. Apple, C.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.; and a Best Buy matter, which the firm notes was also subject to inter partes review), optical fiber amplifiers (Optic 153 LLC v. Thorlabs, W.D. Tex.), pharmaceutical/chemical process patents (Vitaworks IP v. Qianjiang Yongan Pharmaceutical, D.N.J.), medical instruments (Excelsior Med. Corp. v. Ivera Med., D.N.J.), and software trade secrets (Modern Creative Services v. Dell). There is no visible practice in Wi-Fi/standards-essential patents, semiconductors, or life-sciences biologics.

Side preference. The tracked data shows one appearance, plaintiff-side, in a Lead Counsel role — a very small sample, so weight should go to the firm's own case list, which is also predominantly patent-owner/plaintiff side (Comarco, Best Buy, Vitaworks, Excelsior), with at least one defense-side patent engagement (Optic 153 v. Thorlabs). The profile is therefore best characterized as patentee- and plaintiff-leaning commercial IP litigation, including some work for smaller licensing/monetization entities — not a defense-side operating-company patent shop. The firm is not an NPE/PAE volume filer in the sense of a dedicated assertion boutique; volume is low and matters appear opportunistic or relationship-driven.

Notable matters. The single tracked case, Baby Jogger, LLC v. Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird, No. 1:24-cv-00725-GBW (D. Del., filed June 18, 2024, Judge Gregory B. Williams), asserts five Baby Jogger stroller patents (U.S. 8,955,869; 9,403,550; 11,192,568; 11,505,231; 11,878,729) against Mockingbird's single-to-double stroller and 2nd Seat Kit, with willful-infringement and § 285 allegations. It is one of three parallel D. Del. suits by Baby Jogger (a Newell Brands subsidiary) against Mockingbird, Evenflo, and Monahan Products d/b/a UPPAbaby. The case has been hard-fought: Mockingbird moved to dismiss for lack of standing, defendants jointly petitioned for six IPRs covering the asserted patents in 2025, and the parties have litigated scheduling and stay issues. Notably, IPR2025-01120 (the '729 patent) was denied institution on discretionary grounds on December 1, 2025 — a favorable outcome for the client on that patent. Separately, Law.com docket coverage indicates the firm appeared alongside Irell & Manella for Winview Inc. in a patent suit against DraftKings filed July 2025; that appearance is not in the tracked case list and I could not independently verify it.

PTAB/IPR practice and key partners. There is no evidence of a standing PTAB practice at this firm — no publicly reported IPR/PGR filing volume, and the IPRs in the Baby Jogger litigation were filed by defendants' counsel (Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt; Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell), not by MDM&C. The firm's IP page does note prior IPR exposure in a Best Buy power-supply matter, suggesting familiarity but not scale. On personnel: Andrew C. Mayo is the sole tracked IP litigation attorney (lead counsel in Baby Jogger); Thomas R. Curtin (Morristown) is listed in Intellectual Property Litigation, Business Litigation and Entertainment & Sports and has led large class/consumer actions; George C. Jones (Greenwood Village, CO) is listed in Intellectual Property Litigation and Appellate; and William F. O'Connor, Jr. and Michael D. Celentano (New York) handle trademark prosecution and enforcement. No partner is publicly identified as a dedicated patent-litigation practice leader, and the firm publishes no patent trial verdict history.

Caveats: (1) The tracked attribution of Andrew C. Mayo to McElroy Deutsch conflicts with public D. Del. docket filings, which show an Andrew C. Mayo signing for Baby Jogger under the letterhead of Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE), where a Delaware IP litigator of that name practices; the basis for MDM&C's Lead Counsel designation in this case should be verified. (2) Firm self-descriptions of size vary widely (Practical Law's "approximately 300 lawyers in fourteen offices" appears outdated versus Chambers' 120/11 and ILRG's 135). (3) With only one tracked appearance, side-preference and specialty conclusions rest mainly on the firm's self-reported representative matters.