Counsel registry

Steptoe & Johnson

15 case appearances — 3 as plaintiff counsel · 12 as defendant counsel.

Attorneys

Roles

Counsel7
local counsel6
counsel4
former counsel4
lead counsel3
counsel of record; IPR counsel3
Appearing Counsel2
terminated counsel2
former defense counsel2
pro hac vice (terminated)2
former pro hac vice counsel2
backup counsel2
of counsel2
Attorney in Charge1
PTAB lead counsel1
counsel of record1
lead local counsel1

Cases (15)

Δ defendantDelaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al.Mark H. Remus · former pro hac vice counsel
Δ defendantDelaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.Mark H. Remus · terminated counsel
π plaintiffDiablo Technologies, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.William F. Abrams · lead counsel
Δ defendantExpress Mobile, Inc. v. Adobe Inc. et al.Tron Yue Fu · Counsel
Δ defendantLG Display Co., Ltd. et al. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLCMark H. Remus · former counsel
Δ defendantLG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLCMark H. Remus · former defense counsel
Δ defendantLG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLCMark H. Remus · former counsel
Δ defendantLG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLCMark H. Remus · pro hac vice (terminated)
Δ defendantMerck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.William J. O'Brien · lead local counsel
Δ defendantNetlist, Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, Inc.William F. Abrams · counsel of record
Δ defendantNetlist, Inc. v. SMART Modular Technologies, Inc. et al.William F. Abrams · lead counsel
Δ defendantNetlist, Inc. v. SMART Storage Systems, Inc. et al.William F. Abrams · counsel
Δ defendantRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.Gordon H. Copland · local counsel
π plaintiffUntitled caseJames R. Nuttall · Attorney in Charge
π plaintiffUntitled caseJames R. Nuttall · lead counsel

Further reading

§ 285 attorney-fee shifting in practice
§ 285 isn't a guaranteed remedy. It's a high-effort, high-evidence tool that pays off occasionally and dramatically — turning a $3M defense expense into a $3M plaintiff bill.
Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Machine-or-transformation isn't the only § 101 test, business-method patents survived as a category, and the specific Bilski hedging method was unpatentable. The trio of Bilski, Mayo, and Alice gave defendants the modern § 101 motion.
Declaratory judgment actions: when to flip the table on a patent troll
The patent holder is the one with the patent. They're not always the one who gets to pick the courtroom.
KSR International v. Teleflex (2007)
Pre-KSR, an obviousness rejection required explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art. Post-KSR, common sense, design needs, and predictable variations all do the work — and most patents don't survive.
How to obtain a patent
The USPTO process takes 2-3 years and costs $10,000-$15,000. The patent that comes out the other end is only as valuable as your willingness to spend much more enforcing it.

All resources →