Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch

I'll research this firm before drafting.

Now let me verify the tracked case and the lead attorney.

Let me check a few remaining items: the firm's IP litigation page, PTAB presence, and any verdict news.

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP — Patent Litigation Profile

Firm overview. Procopio is a full-service, mid-sized business and litigation firm founded in San Diego in 1946, headquartered at 525 B Street, San Diego. It operates roughly seven offices — downtown San Diego, Del Mar Heights/Carlsbad, Irvine (Orange County), Palo Alto (Silicon Valley), Las Vegas, Scottsdale, and Washington, D.C. — and reports approximately 170–200 attorneys. Procopio's own materials and its Chambers USA profile describe it as an AmLaw 200 firm; ILRG's 2025 headcount ranking places it at #245 among America's 350 largest firms, so treat the "AmLaw 200" label as the firm's and Chambers' characterization rather than a consistent year-over-year ranking. It is a general-practice regional firm with a comparably sized IP platform, not an IP-only boutique.

IP litigation specialty. Procopio's Chambers-ranked strength is patent prosecution (Band 3, California), and its Chambers profile cites life sciences, medical technology, software, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, advanced materials, and energy as core technical areas. On the contentious side, the firm's most consistently recognized niche is trade secrets — WIPR's USA Trade Secrets Rankings lists Procopio as a "Notable" firm for two consecutive years and recognizes Mindy Morton ("Recommended") and Ben Herbert ("Notable"). Litigation experience spans mechanical/consumer products (percussive massage devices), pharma Hatch-Waxman (the firm publicized Federal Circuit wins for Amneal in Amneal v. Noven and the Xyrem IPR appeal affirming invalidity of six Jazz Pharmaceuticals patents), plus digital radios, graphics processors, bitcoin mining, satellite and portable power technology.

Side preference. On the tracked sample the firm appears once, as plaintiff in Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. Therabody, Inc., with Benjamin Herbert as lead counsel (1 plaintiff appearance, 0 defense). That single data point lines up with Herbert's documented plaintiff-side trial record, but the firm itself states it "represent[s] both plaintiffs and defendants," and its trade secret matters are split (e.g., defense of ServiceNow in Williams v. ServiceNow; plaintiff work for Apex.AI, MD Hydration, and Hyperice). The practical read is a patent-owner/enforcement-leaning patent litigation practice layered on a genuinely two-sided trade secret and commercial IP docket — not an NPE/PAE shop and not a defense-only shop.

Notable cases and outcomes. The flagship tracked matter is the Hyperice/Hyper Ice campaign against Therabody in the Central District of California (consolidated lead case 8:24-cv-02034; later-filed 8:25-cv-01939), a multi-suit dispute over percussive therapy and multi-modal treatment device patents. The court consolidated related cases for pretrial purposes through a June 3, 2026 Markman hearing, and Therabody counterclaimed for infringement. No verdict has been reported in the tracked docket. Firm press materials credit Herbert, as lead counsel for a health tech company in percussive-massage-device litigation, and separately with helping secure a $30 million jury verdict for a predictive online customer-service technology provider on patent infringement and trade secret claims; while at Kirkland & Ellis he was a member of three trial teams that secured more than $1.5 billion in jury verdicts over two years (including an $855 million trade secret/copyright verdict and a $765 million digital radio patent verdict). Those figures come from firm and third-party bios, not court records I could independently verify.

PTAB / IPR practice. I found no public report quantifying Procopio's IPR/PGR filing volume, so scale should be described as unverified. The firm does advertise post-grant capability (Brent Johnson lists PTAB post-grant proceedings; Pattric Rawlins lists reexamination, reissue, and PTAB/Federal Circuit appeals), and its IP prosecution practice is empirically active — Patexia's 2025 report placed Procopio in its Top 100 firms across multiple prosecution categories. Directly relevant to the tracked case: Therabody filed PGR2024-00053 (U.S. Patent 11,857,482) and PGR2025-00013 (U.S. Patent 12,038,082) against Hyperice IP Subco, Procopio's client in the district court litigation; both show Final Written Decisions on the Unified Patents PTAB tracker (April 20 and May 11, 2026). I could not confirm from the available records which claims survived, and the public sources do not confirm whether Procopio served as patent-owner counsel in those PGRs.

Key partners. Benjamin Herbert (Irvine/Orange County) — lead counsel on the tracked Hyperice matter; joined Procopio in December 2025 from Miller Barondess (co-leader of its IP practice), previously Kirkland & Ellis; Federal Circuit and N.D. Ohio clerk to Judge Kathleen O'Malley; patent infringement and trade secrets. Mindy Morton (Silicon Valley) — leads the firm's Trade Secrets and Health Care groups, on the management committee; chairs the ABA IP Section's Trade Secrets Committee and is a senior editor for Sedona Conference Working Group 12; patent, trade secret, privacy, and Section 230 litigation. Steven Maddox and Jeremy Edwards (Washington, D.C.) — life sciences and Hatch-Waxman patent litigators who opened the firm's D.C. office in 2022. On the prosecution/PTAB side, Miku Mehta leads the IP team and Brent Johnson handles life sciences patent prosecution and post-grant work.

Note on sourcing: the side-preference and case counts rest on a one-case tracked dataset, and several litigation results ($30M, $855M, $765M, $1.5B) come from firm-published bios or vendor summaries rather than independently reviewed verdicts. Where I could not verify a claim — particularly PGR outcomes and PTAB filing volume — I've said so.