Tatonetti IP

I'll research the firm and the tracked case before drafting.

Let me dig into the tracked case and verify the firm's litigation footprint.

Tatonetti IP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Tatonetti IP is a small intellectual property boutique headquartered in Brooklyn, New York (firm listings also reference Manhattan and Washington, D.C. addresses). It was founded in 2019 and operates largely as a virtual practice, with personnel reportedly located in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Third-party business data (Salary.com) estimates 1–5 employees and sub-$1M revenue; those figures are unverified estimates, not audited. I found no AmLaw 200, Chambers, Vault, or comparable ranking for the firm — it is not a BigLaw firm or a nationally ranked IP boutique, and no attorney-count or revenue figure should be attributed to it beyond the above.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's own practice description centers on patent and trademark preparation, filing, and prosecution, with design patents, freedom-to-operate analyses, non-infringement and invalidity opinions, copyrights, and Amazon seller enforcement as adjacent offerings. The founder's background and the firm's stated technical experience are in mechanical, electrical, and software subject matter, with chemistry and biotechnology coverage through other listed personnel. USPTO prosecution records show a client base weighted toward mechanical and consumer-product applicants (e.g., Crossford International, Black Horse Off Road, KB Racking, TSC International Products, LOGIQS B.V.). Litigation appears to be a secondary practice line relative to prosecution and counseling; the only verifiable federal litigation appearance in the tracked data is a single case.

Side preference. The tracked record shows 0 plaintiff-side and 1 defendant-side appearance, with Thomas Tatonetti listed as backup counsel rather than lead. That is far too thin a sample to establish a stable side preference, and it does not support a characterization of the firm as either a repeat operating-company defender or an NPE/PAE assertion shop. On the available evidence, the firm is best described as a prosecution- and counseling-oriented practice that has appeared on the defense side in one matter — not as an established litigation firm on either side.

Notable cases and outcomes. The single tracked matter is Klipsta Pty Limited v. Lindsay Albanese, in which the firm represents the defendant. Klipsta Pty Limited is an Australian entity and Lindsay Albanese is a Los Angeles-based stylist and product inventor, which suggests a consumer-product/design dispute, but I was unable to verify the docket number, venue, asserted patents, procedural posture, or outcome through public web search, and the firm's own site and directory profiles do not describe the case. No verdicts, Federal Circuit appeals, or verifiable settlements were found for this firm. Nothing in the public record supports citing a notable litigation result.

PTAB / IPR practice and key personnel. The firm's marketing materials claim "significant" experience in USPTO proceedings, specifically naming inter partes review and TTAB cancellation proceedings, but I found no public PTAB filing records confirming a recurring IPR/PGR practice, and no scale figure is available — treat that claim as unverified. The practice is effectively led by Thomas J. (Tom) Tatonetti, the founder (USPTO Reg. No. 73,779; J.D. cum laude, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; B.S., Computer Information Systems, St. Joseph's College), and he is the only attorney appearing in the tracked litigation data. Other listed personnel include Peter Borghetti, William Goldman, Sudi Narasimhan, Charles Shull, and Joy Goudie; the firm's litigation page also names Todd S. Sharinn as a partner, though I could not independently verify his current affiliation. None of these attorneys appear in Chambers, AmLaw, or other recognized IP litigation rankings.

Sourcing note: firm description, personnel, and technical focus are drawn from tatonettiip.com and directory profiles; USPTO data from patentbots.com; case data from the structured case list above. Claims of IPR experience and any litigation "bench strength" rest solely on the firm's own marketing copy and should be independently confirmed before being relied upon.