Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield

I'll research this firm before drafting.

Firm overview. Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield ("RWB") is a small, plaintiff-side litigation boutique founded in March 2003 by Mark Reinhardt, Mark Wendorf, and Garrett Blanchfield, as the successor to Reinhardt & Anderson (a Twin Cities class action firm dating to 1979). Its principal office is at 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050 (First National Bank Building), St. Paul, Minnesota; a Minneapolis address (80 S 8th St., Suite 900) also appears in Super Lawyers directory listings. Third-party data aggregators estimate roughly 8 employees and low-single-digit-millions revenue, but that figure is an unverified commercial estimate and should not be treated as reliable. I found no AmLaw, Chambers, Legal 500, or Vault ranking for the firm; it is best characterized as a regional complex-litigation/class action shop, not an IP boutique or BigLaw firm. The firm's own website describes its practice as antitrust, securities, consumer protection, and RICO class actions — no dedicated patent or IP practice page.

IP litigation specialty. RWB has no publicly described patent practice on its own website. Its sole tracked patent appearance is CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Digi International Inc. (D. Minn., No. 0:26-cv-3949, filed September 2026, assigned to Judge Katherine M. Menendez, Mag. J. Douglas L. Micko). The technology at issue in the CommWorks campaign is wireless networking — Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) / 802.11-2007+ quality-of-service prioritization, Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) provisioning, and network path provisioning — asserted against Wi-Fi routers, gateways, and SoC/chip makers (Comcast/Xfinity, Charter, EarthLink, ZyXEL, Extreme Networks, STMicroelectronics, Axon Networks, among others). This is the firm's only demonstrated patent-litigation exposure; I found no evidence of substantive patent prosecution, standards work, or a broader hardware/semiconductor client base.

Side preference. The data are unambiguous but thin: 1 plaintiff-side appearance, 0 defendant-side. RWB is a plaintiffs' firm by design — its site states it "focuses its practice on representing plaintiffs." In the tracked patent case it serves as local counsel to a plaintiff whose patents are held in a monetization vehicle: CommWorks appears in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database as an acquirer of patents and is described in litigation coverage as a non-practicing entity running a Wi-Fi licensing/assertion campaign. Lead litigation counsel in the CommWorks matters has been Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Atlanta) with Insight PLLC (California); RWB's role is Minnesota-based local counsel, with Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. filing the complaint and a pro hac vice application on the client's behalf. So the accurate statement is: RWB has appeared for the plaintiff/NPE side once, as local counsel — not that it operates a standing patent-assertion practice.

Notable cases or outcomes. The tracked patent case is too new (filed September 2026) to have any public outcome, and I found no reported verdict, settlement, or appeal attributable to RWB in a patent matter. The firm's verifiable notable results are in its core non-patent practices: Tyler v. Hennepin County, 143 S. Ct. 1369 (2023), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court takings decision (firm lawyers named Minnesota Lawyers of the Year in 2023 by Minnesota Lawyer); Lorix v. Crompton Corp., 734 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 2007), a unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court reversal on indirect-purchaser standing; Robertson v. Sea Pines Real Estate Co., 679 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2012); and class recoveries in the multiple-hundred-million-to-billion-dollar range in In re NASDAQ Market Makers, In re Vitamins, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee, In re Air Cargo Shipping Services ($848M), and Dahl v. Bain Capital ($590M), plus pharma antitrust MDLs (Lidoderm, Niaspan, Lithium Ion Batteries). Those antitrust matters involve pharmaceutical and technology markets but are not patent cases.

PTAB / IPR practice and key personnel. There is no public evidence that RWB maintains an IPR/PGR filing or defense practice; no PTAB petitions list the firm, and no public report supports any filing volume. (The CommWorks patents themselves have been challenged at the PTAB — e.g., Unified Patents' IPR2021-01297 against U.S. Pat. 8,923,846 — and the parallel Comcast W.D. Tex. case was dismissed in July 2022, but that activity is not RWB's.) Key personnel, sourced from the firm site and directories: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. — founding partner, named attorney in the tracked patent case, antitrust/consumer litigator of 30+ years, repeatedly listed as a Minnesota Super Lawyers antitrust attorney (2014–2026) and part of the Tyler SCOTUS team; Mark Reinhardt — founding partner (now listed as of counsel), RICO/antitrust and appellate veteran who argued H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell before the Supreme Court; Mark Wendorf — named founding partner; and Roberta A. Yard — partner focused on antitrust, securities, consumer, and data-breach class actions. Directory listings (MoreLaw) also show member Brant D. Penney with an "intellectual property" practice area among his listings, though this is directory-sourced and not corroborated by the firm's own site.

Bottom line for a patent-litigation assessment: RWB is a credible, experienced regional plaintiffs' class-action firm with local-counsel capability in the District of Minnesota, but the record does not support describing it as a patent litigation practice. Its single tracked patent appearance is recent, plaintiff-side, and local-counsel in nature.