One

I'll research this firm — the case list points to One LLP, the California IP boutique. Let me verify.

Confirmed the firm is One LLP. Let me gather more on its size, offices, and case outcomes.

Let me check the FaceTec/iProov matter, the Myport case, and the Polara Federal Circuit appeal.

One LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. The firm is One LLP (onellp.com), founded in 2002 and headquartered at 23 Corporate Plaza in Newport Beach, California, with a second office at 400 Corporate Pointe in Culver City (referred to in firm materials as its Los Angeles office). It is a boutique, not BigLaw: the Los Angeles Times B2B "Top Law Firms – Orange County" list shows roughly 20 attorneys (19 partners) and 29 total employees across two offices, ranked #41 in the county. Chambers USA's Spotlight California 2026 guide ranks One LLP in Intellectual Property (Los Angeles) and Entertainment/Media Law, describing it as a "renowned intellectual property firm" that "excels in representing clients in the technology, media and entertainment industry in trade secrets, patent, copyright, and trademark disputes." The firm does not appear on AmLaw's 200 rankings.

IP litigation specialty. One LLP's own patent-litigation page states its group's technical bench includes electrical/mechanical engineering, computer science, biotechnology, life sciences, and physics, with laterals from O'Melveny & Myers, Jones Day, and Latham & Watkins. The firm lists work in pharmaceuticals, semiconductor fabrication and emulation, optoelectronic transceivers, GSM mobile technologies, cryptographic encryption, embedded web servers, computer networking, medical devices, and mechanical/consumer products. Its recent tracked docket centers on biometric software (the FaceTec 3D-liveness cases) and consumer lighting products; historical representations include Netflix/Blockbuster subscription-video litigation, IGT v. Bally "Wheel of Fortune" gaming patents, Conexant modem patents, Cadence/Quickturn emulation systems, and Meade Instruments telescope optics. Beyond patents, Chambers and the firm's docket reflect substantial copyright, trademark, trade secret, and entertainment practice.

Side preference. In the tracked data, One LLP's appearances skew sharply plaintiff-side — 9 of 11 — and are largely lead or counsel-of-record roles, driven by its representation of FaceTec, Inc. (multiple face-liveness patent suits against Jumio and iProov) and by Myport Technologies. That sample is small, however, and should not be read as a pure enforcement/NPE practice. The firm's own representative-case list is dominated by patent defense work (Blue Cat Networks, Blockbuster, Cadence/Quickturn, Conexant, Crest Digital, SSW Holding, Win-Holt, JVM), alongside plaintiff-side work. In practice it works both sides across a client base the firm describes as ranging from individual inventors to Fortune 500 companies, and it markets contingency, flat-fee, and fixed-retainer alternatives to hourly billing.

Notable matters and outcomes. The most prominent tracked matters are the FaceTec cases: FaceTec, Inc. v. Jumio Corp. (N.D. Cal. No. 3:24-cv-03623, before Judge Rita F. Lin) and FaceTec, Inc. v. iProov Ltd. (D. Nev. No. 2:21-cv-02252). One LLP attorneys William J. O'Brien, Peter R. Afrasiabi, Nathaniel L. Dilger, and Taylor C. Foss appear for FaceTec, including in contested discovery and a motion to stay; FaceTec also moved to disqualify Perkins Coie in the California case, which a federal judge granted. Important caveat: the June 2026 PTAB final written decisions upholding all challenged claims in four Jumio IPRs (IPR2025-00106 through -00109) were defended by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, not One LLP, so that result should not be attributed to this firm. From One LLP's own reported results: Polara Engineering, Inc. v. Campbell Co. (C.D. Cal. No. SACV 13-00007 DFM), where One LLP trial counsel (Dilger) won a willful-infringement verdict with $653,841 in reasonable-royalty damages; the Federal Circuit affirmed validity and willfulness but vacated a $1 million enhancement for insufficient explanation and remanded (Law360, 2018). Also of note: Cooper Lighting v. Cordelia Lighting (N.D. Ga.), where the firm obtained dismissal of willfulness allegations, a TC Heartland venue win, institution of multiple IPRs, and a litigation stay leading to favorable settlement; and Cordelia Lighting v. Zhejiang Yankon (C.D. Cal.), where a preliminary injunction forced removal of accused products from 1,700+ U.S. retail stores. Non-patent but high-profile: a $6.3 million maximum statutory copyright verdict in Hargis v. Pacifica Senior Living (2023) and a $5 million verdict for a UCSD physician (Afrasiabi).

PTAB / IPR practice. The firm markets a real but modest PTAB practice rather than a volume operation. Its website notes experience "go[ing] to trial before the USPTO in several of these specialized proceedings" and involvement in pending IPRs; documented examples include obtaining institution of multiple IPRs in the Cooper Lighting matter and filing CWGC LA Inc. v. DEB IP Ltd. (IPR2017-00776), which produced a prompt settlement. Partner Jennifer A. Mauri's profile states she has appeared as lead counsel before the PTAB and represented a machine-learning patent owner in an IPR. No public report gives firm-level IPR filing counts; One LLP does not appear on the PTAB filer leaderboards that large firms dominate, so aggregate scale cannot be verified.

Key partners. Verified from the firm site and industry profiles: John Tehranian, founding partner and Chambers' named key contact (IP, copyright, entertainment); Peter R. Afrasiabi, founding partner, appellate and IP litigation, repeatedly listed in Super Lawyers (2012–2024); William J. O'Brien, IP litigation and appellate, recurring FaceTec counsel; Nathaniel L. Dilger, IP litigator and Polara trial counsel; and Jennifer A. Mauri, a registered patent attorney whose practice covers life sciences/pharma and PTAB work. Other partners active in IP litigation include Glen Liu (ITC Section 337, SEP/FRAND, appeals) and Paul Y. Feng (patent prosecution and litigation). One caveat on the tracked roster: Franklin D. Kang appears in the case data but does not appear on One LLP's published attorney list, so his firm affiliation could not be corroborated.