Rutan & Tucker

I'll research Rutan & Tucker's IP litigation practice before writing the summary.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case, the lead attorney, and any rankings.

Let me search for the specific case details and the firm's IP practice page.

Rutan & Tucker, LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Rutan & Tucker, LLP (marketed as "Rutan LLP") is a full-service California regional firm founded in 1909 and headquartered in Irvine, in Orange County's "Tech Coast," with additional offices in Palo Alto, San Francisco, and Arizona. The firm's own careers page describes it as "one of California's leading law firms, with more than 140 attorneys" across those four offices — a size indicator consistent with a large regional general-practice firm rather than a national BigLaw firm or a specialized IP boutique. An Los Angeles Times B2B industry list ranked it #1 among Orange County law firms. I could not locate a verified AmLaw 200 ranking or a Chambers IP band placement for the firm, so none is claimed here.

IP litigation specialty. Rutan's intellectual property work is concentrated in trademark, copyright, trade secret, false advertising, and unfair competition litigation rather than in high-volume patent prosecution or standards-based patent litigation. The firm's own attorney profiles describe IP practice leaders focusing on "trademark and copyright litigation, trade secret misappropriation, false advertising, and unfair competition," with patent work appearing as an occasional component of its broader commercial litigation docket (e.g., attorney bios referencing method-patent infringement and trade-secret prosecution). Law360's firm page shows Rutan attorneys docketed in patent matters in venues such as the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, but the firm is not publicly positioned as a Wi-Fi/SEP, pharma, or semiconductor patent specialist, and I found no firm practice description asserting such a focus.

Side preference. On the tracked data, Rutan's patent litigation profile is defense-side: the firm's single tracked patent appearance is as defendant-side lead counsel (0 plaintiff-side, 1 defendant-side). This aligns with its broader IP posture of representing operating companies — retailers, apparel and consumer brands, an automotive aftermarket parts manufacturer, an international wine distributor, and similar commercial clients — in enforcement and defense disputes. Note, however, that its general IP practice (trademark/trade secret) is expressly described by the firm as representing "both plaintiffs and defendants," so the defense-only tilt reflects the limited tracked patent sample rather than a firm-wide policy.

Notable cases and outcomes. The firm's only tracked patent case is MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v. D-Link Systems, Inc., in which Rutan (attorney Larry L. Askland, lead counsel) represented D-Link as defendant. MPHJ is the widely publicized "scanner troll" patent assertion entity that drew FTC and multi-state attorney general scrutiny over its mass demand-letter campaign asserting networked-scanner patents. Publicly reported MPI/MPHJ activity centers on the FTC consent order (Nov. 2014) and the Vermont consumer-protection litigation; I could not verify a specific public verdict, settlement, or Federal Circuit outcome for the D-Link matter itself, so no result is asserted for that case. The firm's most prominent verified IP-trial result is non-patent: a unanimous $12 million jury verdict (including $2 million punitive) in early 2026 in a federal trade secret case tried by Litigation & Trial chair Bradley Chapin on behalf of an automotive aftermarket parts company.

PTAB / IPR practice. I found no public evidence of a dedicated PTAB/IPR/PGR filing practice at Rutan & Tucker, and no public report quantifying IPR volume for the firm. Its USPTO-facing work appears concentrated in trademark prosecution and TTAB inter partes proceedings rather than Patent Trial and Appeal Board post-grant practice. This should be treated as a gap rather than a confirmed absence.

Key partners / practice leaders. Reliably sourced from the firm's site and industry listings: Larry L. Askland — the lead counsel of record on the tracked D-Link patent defense; Bradley Chapin — Chair of the firm's Litigation and Trial department, with IP-adjacent complex business, trade secret, and product liability trial experience; Meredith Williams (Sivakumar) — partner whose practice emphasizes trademark and copyright litigation, trade secret, false advertising, and unfair competition, and who represents clients in USPTO/TTAB proceedings; and Damon Mircheff — partner focused on business and IP litigation, including trademark, false advertising, and trade secret disputes. (Firm-page names only; no invented rankings or credentials.)

Caveats. Publicly available data on Rutan's patent litigation is thin: the one tracked case is a defense against a PAE with no verified published outcome, and the firm has no verifiable AmLaw/Chambers IP ranking, patent-specific trial result, or measurable PTAB docket. Its verified IP strength is in trademark, copyright, trade secret, and false advertising litigation for operating companies.