Partridge

I'll research the firm and its principal attorney before drafting.

Analyst note on sourcing: The tracked entity is a single-appearance firm record, and public records do not corroborate a patent-litigation firm operating under the standalone name "Partridge." I've flagged each inference below rather than filling gaps.

---

Firm overview. The case-tracking record lists "Partridge" as a firm with exactly one tracked patent appearance, made in an of counsel capacity. No AmLaw, Chambers, Vault, or Law360 firm profile exists for a patent litigation practice under that name, and no office footprint, attorney count, or revenue figure could be verified. The only reliably documented individual is Scott F. Partridge, who is publicly listed as a partner at Baker Botts L.L.P., One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana St., Houston (admitted 1974; Texas bar 1993; admitted to the Federal Circuit), with practice areas listed as intellectual property and patent litigation (Martindale, FindLaw). Accordingly, "Partridge" is best characterized as a solo/of-counsel practice or a docket-naming artifact rather than a ranked BigLaw or boutique IP shop. Separately, a Chicago firm named Partridge IP Law P.C. (later Partridge Partners, which joined Culhane Meadows in January 2022) is a trademark and copyright boutique founded by Mark V.B. Partridge; I found no connection between that firm and Scott F. Partridge, and its practice is not patent litigation (ISBA, Culhane Meadows).

IP litigation specialty. The sole tracked matter defines the specialty: Fractus, S.A. v. Geotab Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01008-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., filed Dec. 6, 2024), which is wireless antenna / RF and IoT-connectivity hardware litigation. Fractus asserts five patents — U.S. 8,456,365; 8,810,458; 11,031,677; 11,349,200; and 12,095,149 — covering multi-band antenna design, including claimed mathematical "grid-dimension curve" and "complexity factor" limitations, against Geotab's fleet-telematics devices (GO8, GO9, GO9+). This is standards-adjacent, device-level hardware claiming rather than pharma, semiconductors, or software. Consistent with that, Scott Partridge's own listed practice areas are intellectual property and patent litigation (petition record).

Side preference. The tracked record is 1 plaintiff-side appearance, 0 defendant-side, so on the available data this is a patent-owner/asserting-side practice. The client, Fractus, S.A. (Barcelona), is an antenna-technology R&D and licensing company whose enforcement campaigns against handset and IoT manufacturers are commonly characterized as a monetization program — the sort of asserting-party representation that plaintiff-side boutiques specialize in. Firm-side data (for example, whether it also takes defense engagements) is not available, and one appearance is too thin a base to state a durable preference.

Notable cases and outcomes. The tracked case is the only one, and its public posture is important: Fractus's own December 2024 announcement names Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Joe Grinstein, Justin Nelson, Max Tribble) as its counsel, with Tribble noting roughly 15 years of representing Fractus (Fractus). That indicates the Partridge role is supporting/of-counsel, not lead. No verdict, settlement, claim-construction ruling, or Federal Circuit outcome attributable to this firm was verifiable as of today. On the defense side of the same dispute, Geotab filed IPR2025-01026 against the '677 patent, asserting obviousness over Dou in view of Ciais-Quadband and Nakano, plus anticipation/obviousness over Baliarda-543 (PTAB summary).

PTAB / IPR practice. There is no verifiable PTAB filing volume for a firm called "Partridge" — no IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions appear under that name, and I found no public report supporting any scale figure. The only PTAB activity in the tracked matter is adverse to the client (Geotab's petition against Fractus), so it cannot be attributed to this firm's practice.

Key partners / practice leaders. Only one attorney is named in the tracked record: Scott F. Partridge (of counsel). No other partners, associates, or practice leaders for this entity could be reliably sourced. If the intended subject is instead Baker Botts' Houston IP litigation group, that is a materially different — and much larger — practice, and I would not attribute this single of-counsel appearance to it without confirmation. I'd recommend confirming with the docket (counsel-of-record entries in 2:24-cv-01008) whether the correct firm name is a Partridge-branded solo practice or another firm for which he serves as of counsel.