Sanders O'Hanlon, Motley & Young

I'll research this firm and its tracked case before drafting.

Now let me verify the firm's site, attorney profiles, case outcomes, and any IPR activity.

Firm overview. Sanders, O'Hanlon, Motley & Young, PLLC is a small, general-practice litigation firm at 111 S. Travis Street in Sherman, Texas — the Grayson County seat about 60 miles north of Dallas, in the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas ("Sanders, O'Hanlon, Motley & Young Company Profile," PitchBook; attorney address block, Dareltech LLC v. Samsung Elecs., No. 4:18-cv-00702-ALM, E.D. Tex., Dkt. 34). It is neither BigLaw nor an IP boutique; it does not appear in the AmLaw 200 or in Chambers rankings, and no AmLaw revenue or headcount figure is publicly reported. Third-party aggregators describe it as serving individuals and small businesses in business litigation, estate and fiduciary litigation, insurance litigation, business formation, contracts, intellectual property, partnership and property disputes (PitchBook). Headcount estimates are unreliable — Salary.com's directory lists 6–10 employees, and founding dates conflict between sources (1975 per PitchBook; 1992 per Salary.com), so neither figure should be treated as verified. The firm has also practiced under the name Sanders Motley Young & Gallardo, PLLC, from the same Sherman address.

IP litigation specialty. The firm is not a technology-specialist patent shop. Its IP work in the public record is concentrated in Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, generally as local counsel in Sherman Division cases rather than as the source of technical case strategy. In the one tracked matter, the asserted technology is mobile-application development and testing software — device emulation, resource-utilization profiling, and simulated network conditions — asserted on U.S. Patents 8,924,192, 9,298,864 and 9,971,678 (Wapp Tech LP v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 4:18-cv-00519-ALM, E.D. Tex., Dkt. 116, 5–6; claim construction recitation in Wapp Tech LP v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 4:23-cv-1137-ALM, E.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2024). That is software/QA tooling, not Wi-Fi standards, pharma, or semiconductors. Docket filings also show Roger D. Sanders and J. Michael Young of this firm appearing in Dareltech LLC v. Samsung Electronics (No. 4:18-cv-00702-ALM, E.D. Tex.) — a camera/imaging patent case — though that appearance is not in the tracked case set and should be treated as docket-level evidence only. The firm's own website content (somlaw.net) was not retrievable through search, so its self-described IP practice could not be verified directly.

Side preference. The tracked record is entirely plaintiff-side: 1 plaintiff appearance, 0 defendant appearances, with both logged roles recorded as "Counsel." That is consistent with the underlying matter — Wapp Tech is a patent-owner infringement action, where a Canadian limited partnership and its affiliate sued Bank of America — and with the firm's broader orientation. Named partner Roger D. Sanders' listed practice areas include civil litigation and qui tam/whistleblower claims (MoreLaw attorney profile), and the firm supplied trial-team support to plaintiffs' counsel in the Wilson N. Jones Memorial Hospital fraud litigation against Texas Health Resources, which resolved in a confidential pre-trial settlement in 2016 (Aldous Law firm news, May 2016). There is no documented record of defending operating companies against patent claims.

Notable cases and outcomes. The flagship tracked matter is Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, first filed July 2, 2018 as No. 4:18-cv-00519-ALM, with a second-round suit filed August 27, 2021 as No. 4:21-cv-00670-ALM (Roger D. Sanders notice of appearance, Aug. 30, 2021; Justia docket). Verifiable public milestones include a July 21, 2020 memorandum opinion granting plaintiffs' motion to compel a compliant election of asserted prior art across the three related Wapp I cases (HP/Micro Focus, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America), and a July 6, 2022 claim construction order in the Bank of America case (4:21-cv-670, Dkt. 110) later cited by the court in Wapp's JPMorgan Chase suit. Notably, I could not verify a public verdict, final judgment, or settlement figure in the Bank of America matter, and no Federal Circuit appeal was identified — those outcomes should not be assumed. Wapp Tech's assertion campaign is broader than the tracked case: it also targeted Micro Focus/Seattle Spinco, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Frost Bank, and patent-office records reference trial testimony in the Wapp matters in March 2021 (USPTO PTACTS trial-record filing), though the firm's role in those parallel matters is not established.

PTAB / IPR practice. There is no evidence of a notable IPR, PGR, or CBM filing practice at this firm, and no Docket Navigator, Law360, or PTAB filing-volume data supports any scale estimate. The firm does not appear in PTAB petitioner or patent-owner rankings. The only trace located is a USPTO PTACTS submission listing Roger D. Sanders (rsanders@somlaw.net) alongside Elvin E. Smith III of Siebman Law, LLP, a Sherman firm with an active PTAB practice — consistent with local or co-counsel support in a contested proceeding rather than a standalone post-grant practice, and too thin to characterize further. Separately, Unified Patents appeared in a Northern District of California miscellaneous proceeding (No. 5:22-mc-80114) concerning Wapp Tech's patents; that reflects third-party challenges to Wapp's portfolio, not this firm's PTAB work.

Key partners. The two attorneys reliably tied to the firm's patent litigation are Roger D. Sanders and James Michael ("J. Michael") Young, both of whom appear in the tracked Wapp Tech appearance and both of whom are named in the firm's name; Sanders' publicly listed focus is civil litigation and qui tam/whistleblower claims rather than IP specifically. The remaining names in the masthead (O'Hanlon, Motley) appear in the corporate name and in earlier filings and press references, but no current IP-litigation role is documented for them. None of the firm's attorneys appear in Chambers, IAM Patent 1000, or Law360 partner profiles, and the firm has no bench of IP-specialist litigation partners.

Sourcing caveat: this summary rests on court dockets and opinions, USPTO records, and business-directory aggregators. No AmLaw, Chambers, Vault, or Reuters Legal profile of the firm was found, so size, headcount, and ranking claims above are flagged as unverified or unavailable rather than asserted.