Spangler & Rohlfing

I'll research this firm before drafting.

Initial search returns nothing on this firm. Let me dig into the case and attorney.

Let me verify whether this firm exists publicly and check the docket counsel.

Spangler & Rohlfing — patent litigation practice summary

Firm overview. The firm name is Spangler & Rohlfing. No public footprint could be located for it: searches returned no firm website, no Chambers, AmLaw, Law360, Vault or Reuters Legal profile, and no office or headcount information. It therefore cannot be classified as BigLaw, a recognized IP boutique, or a regional patent shop on the present record, and no ranking should be attributed to it. Two similarly named but unrelated entities surfaced and should not be conflated — Spangler & Fussell PC (Longview, Tex.; Andrew W. Spangler) and James T. Rohlfing & Associates, P.C. (Chicago; reported out of business). The structured case list, which is authoritative here, shows a single tracked appearance, so any characterization of the firm's size or footprint would be speculation.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's only tracked matter is consumer-electronics and software-UI patent work: Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. VIZIO, Inc., in which the plaintiff asserted a family of "intelligent television" patents (including U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,055,254; 9,055,255; 9,077,928; 9,215,393; 9,232,168; 9,247,174; 9,426,527; 9,510,040; 9,578,384; and 10,419,805, naming inventors Sanjiv Sirpal, Saulo Correia Dourado, Mohammed Selim and Alexander de Paz). The subject matter is smart-TV/MartSmartCast-style user interfaces, video-on-demand navigation, live-TV panels and data reporting. Beyond that docket, the only technology profile available is that of the one named attorney, whose own published bio describes experience spanning semiconductors, wireless, audio codecs, streaming media, cable modems and routers, medical devices and branded pharmaceuticals.

Side preference. On the tracked data the firm sits entirely on the patent-owner side: 1 of 1 appearances plaintiff-side, none as defendant, and the recorded role is of counsel rather than lead trial counsel. That is the full extent of what can be said. A single appearance cannot establish a "preference," and there is no public basis to classify the firm as a NPE/PAE assertion shop, even though the client (a Singapore private limited company suing a large TV maker across multiple districts and a coordinated IPR campaign) fits a monetization profile.

Notable matters and outcomes. Multimedia Technologies v. VIZIO was filed in the Eastern District of Texas (No. 2:23-cv-00124, Mar. 24, 2023). VIZIO's improper-venue motion was denied, but the court transferred the case in the interests of justice to the Central District of California (No. 2:25-cv-00577-WLH), where the asserted patents remained unlitigated on the merits. In the parallel Multimedia Technologies v. LG Electronics action (No. 2:22-cv-00494, E.D. Tex.), a jury on May 23, 2025 found several asserted claims invalid. On the PTAB side, VIZIO and LG filed a coordinated campaign (IPR2024-00351/-00352/-00353/-00354; IPR2024-00694/-00696/-00699/-00722/-00723). In IPR2024-00723 the Board's final written decision of Nov. 19, 2025 held all challenged claims of the '384 patent unpatentable; LG was joined as petitioner in IPR2025-00300, and the related Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2025-2063) was dismissed by agreement on Jan. 9, 2026. These outcomes were adverse to the firm's client — worth stating plainly, since the public record in this matter does not show a favorable result for the patent owner.

PTAB/IPR practice and key personnel. There is no evidence of a firm-level IPR or PGR filing practice; the PTAB activity in the tracked matter was driven by opposing counsel (Akin Gump and Skiermont Derby for VIZIO; Perkins Coie for a related petitioner in a separate IPR). IPR volume for Spangler & Rohlfing cannot be estimated from public sources. The only identifiable attorney is Jason F. Choy (California Bar No. 277583, admitted 2011; J.D., University of Pennsylvania, 2005), described in the case list as of counsel. His publicly available career history: partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, then counsel at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (joining in May 2016), and currently listed by the State Bar of California at Blue Peak Law Group LLP, Palo Alto — which differs from the of counsel affiliation recorded in this matter and should be confirmed. No other Spangler & Rohlfing partners or practice leaders are identifiable from public sources.

Sourcing note. Only one tracked case and one named attorney were available, and no firm-level profile, ranking, revenue, headcount or office data exists in the public record reviewed. Findings above are drawn from court and PTAB filings, the Federal Circuit docket, the California State Bar attorney profile, a WilmerHale-published legal-press item, and the attorney's published biography; the last of these is self-reported and not independently verified.