Seed and Berry

I'll verify the firm's profile and the tracked case before writing.

Now let me verify the tracked case, the attorney, and the litigation/PTAB profile.

Let me check Seed IP's litigation/PTAB practice and key partners.

Seed and Berry — now Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP — is a Seattle IP boutique, not a BigLaw firm. The practice was founded in 1962 by Richard W. Seed and Benjamin F. Berry, and "Seed and Berry" remains its historical name (Martindale-Hubbell lists "Seed and Berry LLC" as a prior name; PitchBook lists "Seed & Berry" as formerly known as). It operates from a single office at 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400, Seattle. By its own description, the firm has "over 50 patent attorneys, trademark attorneys, and patent agents" plus 120+ support staff (seedip.com, 60th-anniversary release, Oct. 2022); Vault pegged it at 50–100 attorneys as of 2021. It is not AmLaw-ranked (it does not appear on the AmLaw 100/200), and its recognized standing is as a regional prosecution powerhouse: IAM Patent 1000's 2026 edition ranks it Gold Band for Prosecution and "Highly Recommended" for Transactions; Vault ranked it in the national Top 20 IP boutiques for 2021; Harrity placed it #28 among U.S. patent firms for 2020 utility patents issued (1,509).

The firm's center of gravity is patent procurement, with litigation as a secondary line. IAM's 2026 write-up describes a practice "centred on patent prosecution and long-term portfolio development," technically anchored in life sciences (pharma/biotech, chemistry) and advanced technologies (electrical engineering, software, AI, mechanical/consumer products), complemented by licensing, diligence, and enforcement/defense work. Publicly listed client names include GlaxoSmithKline, STMicroelectronics, Microsoft, Amazon, Cray, Ballard Power Systems, and Flow International (Martindale). This is a technology-generalist boutique rather than a standards-essential/Wi-Fi or Hatch-Waxman specialist.

On side preference, the tracked data shows defense only — but the sample is one case and should not be over-read. The firm's single tracked appearance is as defendant's counsel of record (0 plaintiff-side, 1 defendant-side, role: counsel of record). That figure almost certainly reflects database coverage of the legacy "Seed and Berry" name rather than the firm's actual litigation volume; I found no public data source quantifying Seed IP's current plaintiff/defendant split, and I could not verify any present-day high-volume district court patent litigation docket. Historical directory copy (predating the rename) described the firm's litigators as pursuing IP disputes on both enforcement and defense sides, so a pure "defense shop" characterization isn't supported either.

The one tracked matter is a genuine, decade-long Federal Circuit case. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., filed Aug. 2002; later transferred to D. Mass.) involved three patents on eyeglass frames with magnetically attached auxiliary lenses ('054, '811, '896). Brian G. Bodine of Seed and Berry appeared for defendant Altair Eyewear (court records list "Brian G. Bodine, Seed and Berry, Seattle, WA"; he is now at Ballard Spahr, having since practiced at Davis Wright Tremaine, Merchant & Gould, and Lane Powell). Altair won summary judgment of non-infringement in 2007 (Aspex Eyewear v. Altair Eyewear, 485 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)); on appeal the Federal Circuit reversed the construction of "frame" and the '054 non-infringement ruling, while affirming non-infringement of the '811 and '896 patents and the denial of Altair's standing motion (288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). The case also produced a parallel USPTO reexamination in which the original '054 claims were confirmed patentable. The litigation continued in the District of Massachusetts into 2011–2012 on a "case stated" posture. (Earlier standing and claim-construction opinions are reported at 361 F. Supp. 2d 210 and 386 F. Supp. 2d 526.)

PTAB/IPR activity is present but not a headline practice, and I found no credible public scale figure. The clearest verified instance is Seed IP acting for patent owner Zonar Systems, Inc. in an IPR (USPTO PTAB petition papers list Seed Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC as counsel, with David V. Carlson as lead and Thomas J. Satagaj as backup). I did not find a public report quantifying Seed IP's IPR/PGR petition or defense volume, and no basis to characterize it as a leading PTAB filer.

Verifiable practice figures: Kevin S. Costanza is Managing Partner (recognized by Best Lawyers for Litigation–Intellectual Property since 2014). Jeffrey E. Danley, a Senior Partner with an electrical engineering background, is the most consistently recognized litigator and is the firm's IAM Patent 1000 "Recommended Individual" in the Litigation category for 2026. Other named leaders include Eric A. Harwood (Chair, Chemistry and Biotechnology Group) and Brooke Quist and Karl Hermanns on the prosecution/life-sciences side; Marc C. Levy handles trademark and TTAB contentious work. Note that Brian G. Bodine, the attorney of record in the tracked case, is no longer with the firm — a relevant caveat for anyone mapping this historical appearance onto the current roster.