Procopio

I'll research Procopio's profile and IP litigation practice, then verify the tracked case.

Let me verify a couple of remaining points: AmLaw ranking, and any firm-level PTAB/IPR activity.

Procopio — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP is a mid-sized, full-service corporate, IP and litigation firm headquartered at 525 B Street, San Diego (founded 1946). Public sources put it at roughly 170–200 attorneys across seven offices — San Diego, Del Mar Heights, Silicon Valley/Palo Alto, Orange County (Irvine), Las Vegas, Scottsdale/Phoenix and Washington, D.C. It describes itself, and Chambers and Meritas profiles repeat, that it is the only AmLaw 200 firm headquartered in San Diego, and it holds Mansfield Rule Plus certification. Chambers USA 2026 ranks the firm in Intellectual Property: Patent Prosecution – California (Band 3); it is not positioned as an IP boutique but as a regional business-law platform with a substantial IP bench.

IP litigation specialty. Procopio's IP litigation identity is anchored more in trade secrets and commercial IP disputes than in standards-based patent warfare — no Wi-Fi/SEP or pharma-ANDA litigation appears in the tracked record. WIPR's USA Trade Secrets rankings (2024 and 2025) list Procopio as a "Notable" firm, crediting strength in California federal courts, injunctive relief, employee-mobility disputes and computer-forensics/ESI work; 2024 coverage noted 12 partners and three other lawyers with significant trade secrets practices. Underlying patent work is prosecution-led and technical: Chambers and the firm's own materials cite life sciences, medical devices/digital health, software/AI, semiconductors and advanced materials, with particular strength in U.S.–Asia Pacific portfolio work. Firms' IAM Patent 1000 recognition and PatentBots "Top Ten Large Law Firm for Patent Quality" listing support the prosecution-side depth.

Side preference. The structured docket data is thin and one-sided: 1 tracked appearance, 0 plaintiff-side and 1 defendant-side, as lead counsel. That single appearance is a defensive posture in a C.D. Cal. declaratory-judgment patent case where the firm's client also asserted its own patents by counterclaim. The firm's public description is broader — it states it represents both claimants and defendants in trade secret matters, and its newly added IP litigation partner has an extensive plaintiff-side patent trial record from prior firms. On the tracked federal patent docket, however, there is no evidence of an NPE/PAE-style assertion practice; the pattern is defense of operating companies, with occasional offensive counterclaims.

Notable tracked case and public outcomes. The sole tracked matter is Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc. v. Hyper Ice Inc. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00452 (C.D. Cal., filed Mar. 7, 2025) — a declaratory-judgment action of non-infringement and invalidity of Hyperice's '082 massage-gun patent plus a Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 unfair-competition claim over Amazon de-listing, consolidated into lead case 8:24-cv-00098 for pretrial purposes through the Markman hearing and administratively closed. Important caveat: the appearance is docketed under Benjamin Herbert while he was at Miller Barondess, where he was IP practice co-leader; he joined Procopio in December 2025/January 2026. The Procopio-level attribution therefore derives from attorney movement rather than a Procopio-issued appearance, and I found no public verdict, settlement or Federal Circuit ruling in the massage-device litigation to report. The firm's own announcement credits Herbert as lead counsel for a health-tech client in nationwide percussive-device litigation and cites a $30 million jury verdict (patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation) for a predictive customer-service technology provider — that result is firm-claimed, not independently confirmed by a court opinion I located.

PTAB / IPR practice. No public report supports a firm-level IPR/PGR volume figure for Procopio, and I could not verify one; treat any specific count as unsourced. The firm does advertise PTAB capability: its IAM-recognized team handles patent prosecution and post-grant work, and Herbert's professional profiles state he has significant experience in USPTO proceedings including inter partes review and before the Federal Circuit. Given the trade-secret-centric profile, IPR work appears to be an adjunct to litigation rather than a standalone volume practice.

Practice leaders. The most reliably sourced names are Mindy Morton (partner and management committee member; IP litigation, healthcare and trade secrets practice leader; WIPR "Recommended" 2025 and WIPR Leader 2026; ABA IP Section Trade Secrets Committee co-chair and Sedona WG12 member), Benjamin Herbert (IP litigation, Orange County; WIPR "Notable" 2025 and WIPR Leader 2026; IAM Strategy 300 2025), Miku Mehta (head of the IP team; IAM Patent 1000 and Strategy 300; Chambers-noted key contact) and Xiaofan "Frank" Yang (management committee; IAM Patent 1000 for pharmaceutical expertise). Noel Gillespie (medical technology, IAM Patent 1000), Paul Tyrell and Victor Felix also appear in ranking write-ups as IP disputes contributors. Managing partner is Dennis Doucette.