Counsel registry

Padmanabhan & Dawson

6 case appearances — 1 as plaintiff counsel · 5 as defendant counsel.

Generating firm summary with web-search grounding — usually 30-60s. Don’t leave this page.

Attorneys

Further reading

Joint defense groups: economics, formation, and the privilege framework
An NPE sues twenty defendants on one patent. Solo, each faces $3-5M in defense costs. Pooled into a joint defense group, the per-defendant number drops to $200-500K. The economics only work if the privilege framework is set up correctly.
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
Narrow your claim during prosecution and you presumptively give up the equivalents in between. The presumption is rebuttable, but in practice the prosecution history is a defendant's gold mine.
Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014)
Octane Fitness rejected the rigid Brooks Furniture test and restored district-court discretion over fee awards. Together with its companion Highmark, it gave defendants the most realistic post-trial recovery path the modern patent system has produced.
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
Pre-TC Heartland, plaintiffs sued in plaintiff-friendly E.D. Tex. by default. Post-TC Heartland, venue is a real defense — and Delaware is where most U.S. patent cases land.
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
Claim construction is exclusively the court's job. The Markman hearing is the most consequential single ruling in nearly every patent case — and a defendant's best chance to end the litigation before trial.