TottisLaw

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

Let me look into the tracked case and the other named attorney.

Let me check the firm's own site and a couple of its public case outcomes.

TottisLaw — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. TottisLaw is a small Chicago litigation boutique founded in 1996 by Kevin Tottis, headquartered at 401 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 530, Chicago. It is a single-office shop, not a BigLaw firm or a national IP boutique; Martindale-Hubbell lists an office size of 3, and the firm has no AmLaw, Vault, or national Chambers band ranking. Its principal external recognition is inclusion in Chambers USA's Chicago Regional Spotlight Guide (small and midsized firms) for Intellectual Property — its own AIPLA speaker bio describes that recognition as running "for the second year in a row." Chambers' write-up characterizes the team as "a strong choice to handle complex IP disputes," with particular strength in copyright infringement and appellate capability. Treat Chambers' Regional Spotlight as a directory recognition for small/mid-size firms, not a ranked national practice.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's self-described focus is complex IP and commercial litigation — copyright, trademark, unfair competition/false advertising, trade secrets, licensing, and appeals, with patent litigation as a component rather than the core. Chambers and Martindale both point to copyright as the strongest area. Partner bios describe patent work including Hatch-Waxman generic-drug litigation. The tracked matter sits in autonomous robotics and computer vision: the asserted patents in the underlying dispute cover robotic mapping and localization, routing/pose and "repulsive force" navigation, and optical/dynamic-contrast object detection (U.S. Patents 10,001,780; 10,274,325; 10,728,436; 10,823,576), asserted against Avidbots' autonomous floor-scrubbing robots ("Neo" line).

Side preference. The tracked data show one appearance, on the plaintiff side (1 plaintiff / 0 defendant), in a local-counsel role. That is consistent with the public docket: in Brain Corporation v. Avidbots Corporation, No. 1:24-cv-12569 (N.D. Ill., Judge Jeremy C. Daniel, filed Dec. 6, 2024), Kevin Tottis and Keith M. Stolte entered appearances for plaintiff Brain Corporation, which is a patent owner asserting infringement. Note a caption discrepancy worth flagging: the case list renders the matter as "Avidbots Corporation v. Brain Corporation," but the public docket captions it in the reverse, with Brain Corp. as plaintiff and Avidbots as defendant — in either rendering, TottisLaw is on the patent-owner/plaintiff side. With a single tracked appearance, no inference about systematic plaintiff- or defense-side preference is supportable; other publicly listed matters show work on both sides of the "v." (e.g., plaintiff-side trademark in Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Agilant Solutions, Inc., N.D. Ill. 2020; defense-side trade-secret work and the Atticus v. Dramatic Publishing copyright matter, in which the TottisLaw-side party lost summary judgment and drew a $400K+ fee motion — that latter representation is not fully confirmed from a primary source and should be verified before use).

Notable cases and outcomes. The Brain/Avidbots robotics dispute is the most prominent tracked matter and the only one in the firm's patent docket here; the firm's role appears to be local counsel supporting out-of-state pro hac vice counsel (D. Hughes, S. Sheila, M. Uribe), consistent with the "local / lead counsel" designation in the data. On the appellate side, TottisLaw — Tottis, Monica L. Thompson, and Rachel Vorbeck — filed the AIPLA amicus brief in Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit case holding that the PTO cannot recover its attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 145, which shows comfort with PTAB-adjacent appellate issues. No verdicts, settlement figures, or Federal Circuit results attributable to the firm were verifiable for the Brain/Avidbots matter.

PTAB / IPR practice. There is no evidence of a meaningful standalone IPR/PGR filing practice at this firm, and no public report supports a filing volume. In the Brain/Avidbots dispute, Avidbots filed a series of IPR petitions on Dec. 4, 2025 (including IPR2025-01600, -01602, and -01604, challenging, e.g., the '780 and '436 patents), with petitioner counsel identified as Brian M. Buroker and respondent counsel as Daniel Hughes — not TottisLaw. All the identified petitions were terminated on the same date, March 23, 2026, by Director discretionary denial, so no claims were cancelled. The firm's PTAB exposure therefore appears to be district-court-side support rather than petition drafting. This should be treated as a snapshot, not a definitive absence.

Key personnel. Kevin Tottis (Managing Partner) is the practice leader — roughly four decades of IP and commercial litigation, AIPLA Fellow and former AIPLA Board member, chair of AIPLA's Copyright Committee (2011) and current chair of its Public Appointments Committee, AAA arbitrator, PLI faculty, Martindale AV Preeminent, and an Illinois Super Lawyer continuously since 2010. Keith M. Stolte (partner since July 2019) handles trademark, copyright, unfair competition, patent litigation including Hatch-Waxman, and trade secrets; previously at McDermott Will & Emery and named a Managing IP IP Star in 2013–2015. Monica L. Thompson (partner since 2016) has 30+ years of litigation experience across manufacturing, medical, financial, and consumer-product sectors. Rachel M. Vorbeck (partner since 2016) focuses on IP and business litigation with appellate experience, including a prior clerkship staff-attorney role at the Seventh Circuit.