Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar

I'll verify the firm's profile and practice details through web research before drafting.

Let me verify the firm's litigation practice and the tracked cases.

Let me verify the other two tracked cases and the current litigation leadership.

Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP ("Renner Otto") — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Renner Otto is a Cleveland, Ohio IP boutique founded in 1880 and headquartered at 1621 Euclid Avenue (19th Floor). It operates a single U.S. office; U.S. News' law-firm directory lists 22 lawyers (14 partners), and Martindale reports 23 personnel — squarely an IP boutique rather than BigLaw or a national litigation shop. The firm describes itself as a full-service IP practice covering patents, trademarks, copyrights, design patents, IP litigation, and IP management/transactions. No AmLaw or Chambers ranking for this firm could be reliably verified in public sources; the only ranking claim located is the firm's own self-reported placement (68th among U.S. patent firms, 1st in Ohio, per IP Nexus 2015), which should be treated as self-reported and dated.

IP litigation specialty. Litigation is a secondary but real practice line for a firm whose core business is prosecution. The firm's trial group describes first-chair patent and trademark trial experience across RFID devices, semiconductor inspection equipment, handheld telecommunications test sets, consumer cleaning solutions, DVD/video processing, window sealants, ballistic vests, and electroplating, plus medical-device arts (spinal fixation, endoscopes, imaging probes) and design patents. Prosecution-side technical depth is in mechanical, electrical, electro-mechanical, chemical, and biomedical engineering, with a heavy industrial/consumer-products client base (USPTO records show work for Panasonic IP Management, Parker-Hannifin, Raytheon, Shimadzu, Sharp, Kiekert, Sumitomo Electric, Ranpak, and American Sterilizer). Notably, the practice is not oriented toward Wi-Fi/standards-essential licensing or pharma Hatch-Waxman work.

Side preference. The tracked docket is small — 2 plaintiff-side and 1 defendant-side appearance — so firm-wide side preference can only be stated cautiously. Partner Mark C. Johnson's own bio states he "has handled both plaintiff and defense matters," and the case mix supports that: Renner Otto filed the infringement complaint for Sanastar (plaintiff) while leading the defense in Fresh Products, LLC v. Jeffrey Scott Crevier. This looks like an enforcement-and-defense practice for operating companies and smaller innovators, not a volume NPE/PAE-side practice; nothing in the record supports a contingent-fee plaintiff model.

Notable cases and outcomes. The most active tracked matter is Sanastar, Inc. (d/b/a WizKid Products) v. Fresh Products LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00418 (N.D. Ohio, filed March 3, 2025, J. Zouhary) — a § 271 infringement suit over U.S. Patent Nos. 10,036,154 and 10,294,649 (urinal anti-splash devices) pitting the Splash Hog against the accused Tsunami product. On the appellate side, Johnson's bio lists losses/wins including Dodocase VR, Inc. v. MerchSource, LLC, 767 F. App'x 930 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S, 887 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Partner Don W. Bulson co-authored the prevailing briefs in KSM Fastening Sys., Inc. v. H.A. Jones Co., 776 F.2d 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Two caveats: the Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC matter (Donald L. Otto, listed as prosecution/correspondence counsel) and Fresh Products, LLC v. Crevier could not be independently confirmed in public sources during this review, and no public verdict or settlement figures were found for the Sanastar dispute.

PTAB/IPR practice and key partners. The firm has a modest but active PTAB presence rather than a dedicated IPR machine — no public report supports a filing volume figure. Verified examples: Renner Otto represents patent owner Smart Soda Holdings in Hydration Labs, Inc. d/b/a Bevi v. Smart Soda Holdings, Inc., PGR2024-00002 (Mark C. Johnson lead counsel; Sarah L. Boone and Grant J. Steyer backup). On the receiving end, Fresh Products filed IPR2025-01339 and IPR2025-01366 against Sanastar's two asserted patents in July 2025 (Petitioner counsel not confirmed as Renner Otto; third-party aggregators list the '339 proceeding as a discretionary denial, a status that should be re-verified at the Board). Key practitioners: Mark C. Johnson (partner; IP enforcement and defense, Federal Circuit and PTAB), Kyle B. Fleming (identified in a 2018 filing as partner and co-chair of litigation, a former Electrolux AGC for IP — current status at the firm should be confirmed), Sarah L. Boone (associate, registered patent attorney, PTAB patent-owner work), Donald L. Otto, and Todd Tucker (trial practice group, first-chair patent and trademark trials).