Noroozi

I'll research this firm before drafting.

Firm overview. Noroozi PC (styled simply "Noroozi") is a small, single-office intellectual-property litigation boutique founded in 2014 and headquartered at 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2170, Los Angeles, CA 90025 (noroozipc.com; Kona Equity). Third-party business databases estimate roughly 11 employees (another lists 1–10) and annual revenue in the low single-digit millions — figures that are algorithmic estimates, not audited, and should be treated as indicative only. I found no AmLaw 200/AmLaw rankings or Chambers firm-level ranking for this firm, and I cannot verify any; the recognitions that are publicly documented are individual (see below). It describes its practice as high-stakes commercial litigation with a patent focus, litigating in district courts, the ITC, the PTAB and the Federal Circuit, and states that it "eschew[s] the billable hour."

IP litigation specialty. The docket skews to electronics and computer-implemented technology rather than pharma, mechanical or life sciences: speech/voice-recognition circuits (Zentian Ltd. matters against Apple and Amazon), audio coding and in-loop filter prediction technology (Dolby's '577 patent), data compression and storage (Realtime Data proceedings against Dell, EMC, HP, HPE, Teradata and Veritas), LED lighting and recessed downlights (Lighting Science Group, including ITC Investigation 337-TA-1168), Wi-Fi/wireless communications (Vivato Technologies IPRs brought by Cisco, Aruba, Ruckus, Arris, Netgear and Belkin), double-sided USB devices (Reversible Connections), and targeted advertising (B.E. Technology). The firm also has a visible §101 and standards-essential-patent/FRAND policy footprint: Kayvan Noroozi co-authored Why Incentives for "Patent Holdout" Threaten to Dismantle FRAND, 32 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1381, which DOJ Antitrust Division leadership cited in announcing its 2018 SEP policy shift (IPWatchdog profile; noroozipc.com).

Side preference. The tracked list is 4 plaintiff-side to 2 defendant-side, and the firm's own description matches that tilt: it represents "publicly traded operating companies with deep innovation pedigrees, funds, and institutional patent licensing entities" on both sides but says it has "tend[ed] to represent more patent owners" (noroozipc.com/about; Sciences Po interview). In practice the firm functions primarily as patent-owner/plaintiff counsel — including for large operating companies acting as licensors (Dolby, Ericsson) — with a smaller defense/respondent practice. Note that one tracked matter is unnamed, so the six-case list understates the docket.

Notable matters. (1) Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC — Noroozi represented Dolby, which won the IPR on the merits (PTAB, IPR2021-00275) but whose appeal was dismissed for lack of Article III standing in a precedential Federal Circuit decision, 138 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2025), holding the AIA creates no "informational right" to real-party-in-interest disclosure; rehearing en banc was denied Sept. 23, 2025, the cert petition (No. 25-1011) was filed Feb. 20, 2026, and cert was denied June 22, 2026 (CAFC opinion; Patently-O). (2) Zentian — PTAB final written decisions in June 2024 invalidated most claims across a series of Zentian voice-recognition patents while upholding some (IPR2023-00033 et seq.); on June 8, 2026 the Federal Circuit affirmed Apple's win in one Zentian appeal, and on July 21, 2026 it vacated and remanded another decision (US 10,839,789) for Apple, faulting the Board's claim analysis (Law360). (3) B.E. Technology v. Twitter/Google — Federal Circuit affirmed validity of claim 25 of US 8,769,440 on Aug. 14, 2024, with Noroozi arguing as lead counsel (noroozipc.com). (4) Firm-reported wins: reversal and remand of a PTAB invalidity decision (May 2019), 80% denial of Nichia/Osram IPRs against Lighting Science Group patents, and repeated Realtime Data FWD victories, several affirmed via Rule 36. (5) Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics — the bio attributed to Noroozi claims he co-obtained one of Texas's ten largest 2016 patent verdicts and authored the winning brief in the precedential 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) §101 decision; I could not independently verify the verdict ranking.

PTAB/IPR practice and key personnel. This is a genuine strength, not a sideline. Third-party PTAB data shows 100 PTAB matters in which Noroozi PC is listed as patent-owner counsel (Unified Patents PTAB portal), and the firm claims 60–70+ IPRs handled and roughly twenty non-institution decisions won for patent owners — a self-reported figure. Noroozi is California-barred and appears in PTAB proceedings on a pro hac vice basis via sponsoring registered practitioners (see e.g. his PHV motion in IPR2025-00003 for Ericsson). The practice is essentially founder-centered: Kayvan B. Noroozi is the sole named lead counsel across all six tracked appearances and is the firm's principal; he is the firm's only verified ranked individual on my search (IAM Strategy 300; Bloomberg Law "next generation" list; Super Lawyers Rising Star). Richard Epstein (Univ. of Chicago emeritus) appears as appellate co-counsel in the Dolby matter, and Patrick Strawbridge is listed as counsel of record at the cert stage — both outside the firm. Third-party business databases list a "James Milkey" as a principal, but I could not confirm any partner roster from the firm's own website and have not verified it. Any statement of the firm's headcount, revenue or ranking beyond the above should be treated as unsourced.