Setter Roche Smith & Shellenberger

I'll research this firm before writing the summary.

Now let me research the AG 18 v. DraftKings matter and the PTAB proceedings.

Let me dig deeper into the Federal Circuit outcomes and the firm's own IP practice description.

Setter Roche Smith & Shellenberger LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Setter Roche Smith & Shellenberger LLP is a small, Denver-based general-practice firm. Its principal office is at 1860 Blake Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado; its attorney roster also lists lawyers in Austin, Chicago, Milwaukee and Salt Lake City, and a Martindale listing shows a Fort Collins, Colorado office. U.S. News' law-firm directory describes roughly 25 lawyers and 9 partners and lists a single Denver location, so the out-of-state entries appear to be individual attorneys rather than staffed offices. No AmLaw 100/200, Chambers, Vault or similar ranking for the firm was located in searching; the firm should be characterized as a regional general-practice shop with a registered-patent-attorney bench, not a BigLaw firm or an IP litigation boutique. The firm's public-facing site is oriented substantially toward family and juvenile law alongside IP, litigation and corporate work — that mixed profile matters when assessing its IP litigation footprint.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's IP strength is prosecution-led. Founding partner Michael J. Setter is a registered patent attorney who lists wireless communications, bioinformatics and medical systems, optics and optical signal processing, energy distribution and control systems, internet and data systems, software and electronics, and machine learning/AI as technology areas, and the team page shows BSEE/BSCE/MS-engineering credentials across several partners and patent attorneys. The firm's civil litigation page does advertise patent, trademark and copyright infringement work. Its one tracked litigation matter is in networked/online gaming software — geolocation-based wagering restrictions and peer-to-peer gaming systems — a software/networked-services art area that has drawn substantial §101 and means-plus-function scrutiny.

Side preference. On the tracked data, the firm is plaintiff-side only: 1 plaintiff-side appearance, 0 defendant-side, in a lead-counsel role. That single matter, AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming v. DraftKings Inc. et al., is a patent-owner enforcement action by an entity that acquired the asserted patents by assignment (originally Avio Ventures → Arrow Gaming → AG 18), i.e., a monetization-style plaintiff. The obvious caveat: a one-case sample supports the observation that the firm has appeared for a patent owner asserting acquired patents, but not the broader claim that it "prosecutes for NPEs/PAEs" as a practice. There is likewise no tracked record of it defending operating companies in patent litigation, despite its general civil-litigation marketing.

Notable case and outcomes. Stephen S. Roche is the firm's only tracked attorney of record (see below). In AG 18 v. DraftKings, D.N.J. No. 2:21-cv-15737 (filed Aug. 19, 2021), Arrow Gaming asserted four peer-to-peer/geolocation gaming patents ('498, '205, '220, '657; a fifth, the '131, was added later) against DraftKings and Crown Gaming, with willful-infringement allegations. DraftKings filed five IPRs in August 2022; the PTAB instituted all five on March 14, 2023, and the district court administratively terminated the case and stayed it on April 3, 2023. Final written decisions on March 12–13, 2024 found all litigation-asserted claims unpatentable; only claim 18 of the '205 patent and claim 11 of the '657 patent survived, and neither had been asserted in the litigation. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed in DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, No. 24-2078 (nonprecedential, May 6, 2026), holding DraftKings failed to prove claim 18 of the '205 patent unpatentable (it had tried to shift claim 18 to a new ground in a reply footnote), and affirmed the '498 decision in AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc., No. 24-1821 (Rule 36 summary affirmance, Apr. 15, 2026). Net public outcome for the firm's client: the asserted claims were invalidated and the appeals were lost; claim 18's survival is a narrow, non-asserted win. Also of note, the court denied DraftKings' motion to disqualify plaintiff's pro hac vice counsel (Oct. 4, 2022) — that motion targeted the Shore Chan firm, not Setter Roche.

PTAB / IPR practice and key counsel. There is no public evidence of a standing IPR/PGR filing practice at this firm, and no published volume figures; the IPR activity it touches is defensive-side patent-owner work. Setter Roche's documented PTAB appearance is limited: Roche signed the § 42.8 mandatory notices in the DraftKings v. AG 18 IPRs (e.g., IPR2022-01442, Sept. 12, 2022), naming himself lead counsel and listing the firm's address and U.S. Reg. No. 52,176. By a February 2023 Board conference-call order, Perkins Coie attorneys (Bombach, Asphahani) appeared for the patent owner, and Perkins Coie argued the Federal Circuit appeals; the district court docket shows New Jersey local counsel and Shore Chan pro hac vice counsel. The firm therefore does not appear on the later-stage filings in its own tracked case — a factual limitation worth flagging in any pitch or conflict check. Key names: Stephen S. Roche (partner, Denver; JD/BSEE Marquette) is the firm's litigation-side patent contact of record; Michael J. Setter (founding partner, Denver; JD Missouri–KC, BSEE Missouri; former Faegre & Benson partner and Sprint patent attorney) leads prosecution; other registered patent attorneys/partners include Brian Arment, Sara J. Bradford, David J. Bovitz (BSEE) and Melanie I. Rauch (Chicago, engineering chemistry).

Sourcing note: firm size, offices and attorney credentials are from the firm's own site, its U.S. News Law Firms profile and Martindale. Case facts are from the D.N.J. docket, PTAB papers (mandatory notices, institution and final written decisions, IPR2022-01442/01445/01446/01447/01448) and the Federal Circuit opinions. DraftKings' SEC filings (FY2024 and Q2 2025 10-Q/10-K) corroborate the case chronology and outcomes. A third-party prosecution-analytics site suggests the firm handles Oracle International Corporation prosecution work; I could not verify that against the firm's own disclosures and it is excluded above. No AmLaw, Chambers or Vault ranking for this firm was found.