Thompson Hine

I'll research Thompson Hine's IP litigation practice before drafting.

Let me verify the specific tracked cases and the PTAB practice scale.

Thompson Hine LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Thompson Hine LLP is a full-service business law firm headquartered in Cleveland (3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square). It is an Am Law Second Hundred firm rather than an IP boutique: Bloomberg Law, citing AmLaw data, reported roughly 350 lawyers and about $263 million in revenue in 2023 (146th largest U.S. firm by revenue) at the time of its Los Angeles launch. Public headcount figures vary by source and date — ILRG's 2025 ranking lists 363 attorneys and 191 partners, Chambers USA's 2026 profile lists 446 lawyers across 11 offices, and the firm describes itself as having "more than 400 lawyers." The office footprint is Atlanta, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Silicon Valley, and Washington, D.C. — a national platform with heavy Midwest concentration, and three West Coast entries added since mid-2024.

IP litigation specialty. The firm maintains two related groups: Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation and IP Prosecution, Transactions & Portfolio Management. Chambers USA ranks the IP practice (Ohio department; partner Marla R. Butler individually ranked for IP in Georgia and Band 4 nationally in 2026). The firm's own description cites USPTO-registered attorneys across software/computers, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, aeronautical/aerospace, automotive, chemistry, and materials; its litigation group claims technology experience in mobile communications, video streaming, speech coding, IT network management, software, and AI-based medical imaging. The January 2026 combination with Silicon Valley IP litigation boutique Turner Boyd Seraphine added a trial-focused bench (with Ph.D. and engineering credentials) and brought the IP & Technology Litigation group to approximately 35 lawyers, per the firm's announcement.

Side preference. Thompson Hine works both sides rather than occupying a single lane. The tracked appearances are 2 plaintiff-side and 3 defendant-side, but the more telling pattern is role: nine of the tracked entries are local counsel engagements, with only two lead-counsel roles, suggesting the firm is frequently retained as in-forum counsel rather than national coordinating counsel. On the plaintiff side it has represented patent monetization entities (SIPCO, LLC) as well as patent owners; on the defense side it has represented operating companies including Intel (in Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corp.) and GE HealthCare/Caption Health. Chambers also notes defense work for Canva against "patent troll" suits. It is neither exclusively a defense shop nor an NPE/PAE prosecution shop.

Notable matters and outcomes. The most prominent publicly documented result is the ITC Section 337 investigation Certain Disposable Vaporizer Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1410, in which the Commission on March 10, 2026 reversed an ALJ's finding of violation, held the remaining asserted RJ Reynolds claims obvious, and terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation; Marla R. Butler served as lead trial counsel for the firm's clients (firm announcement, reported via Lexology). In the University of British Columbia v. Caption Health, Inc. / GE HealthCare dispute (N.D. Cal.), Thompson Hine prosecuted parallel IPRs on behalf of Caption Health — IPR2025-01422 (the '029 patent) and IPR2025-01066 (the '591 patent) — with institution granted on the '029 petition (PTAB, Feb. 3, 2026) after the Director denied discretionary denial in October 2025. I could not verify public outcomes for the SIPCO v. Emerson Electric or Proxense v. Intel matters from the sources reviewed; those entries should be treated as unconfirmed on results.

PTAB/IPR practice and key partners. The firm has a genuine but not publicly quantified PTAB practice: registered patent attorneys handle IPRs, PGRs, ex parte reexaminations, and appeals (e.g., David R. Jaglowski; Rajin Olson, who handles IPR proceedings), and the firm has published on PTAB rulemaking and IPR strategy (Law360, Nov. 2025; Thompson Hine client updates). I found no reliable public report of firm-wide IPR/PGR filing volume, so no scale figure should be asserted. Practice leaders and prominent IP litigators include Christopher K. Larus (partner-in-charge, Minneapolis; National Practice Chair, IP & Technology Litigation), Marla R. Butler (Atlanta; firm Executive Committee; Chambers-ranked), Karen Boyd (Silicon Valley; founding partner of Turner Boyd Seraphine; former Federal Circuit clerk and Federal Circuit/ITC mediator), and Rachael L. Rodman (WTR 1000 Gold Band; first-chair patent, Lanham Act, and trade secret trials). Jennifer Seraphine serves as Silicon Valley office partner-in-charge.

Sources: Chambers USA 2026 firm and lawyer profiles; Thompson Hine firm website and press releases; ILRG 2025 firm ranking; Vault; Bloomberg Law (June 2024); Lexology (firm announcements); PTAB filings and Docket Alarm records in IPR2025-01422; Law360 author listings. Attorney counts and revenue figures vary across sources and by date and should be cited with the source named.