Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders

I'll research the firm's current profile, IP litigation practice, and key matters before writing.

Good baseline. Now let me verify the notable cases and the IPR/PTAB practice.

Now let me verify the other headline matters and the firm's Boston/Georgia IP leadership.

Troutman Pepper Locke (formerly Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP) — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. The firm's tracked patent appearances are docketed under Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, which merged with Locke Lord effective January 1, 2025 to form Troutman Pepper Locke LLP — so the case list spans two firm identities. The combined firm reports more than 1,600 attorneys in 30+ offices, with U.S. roots in Atlanta and Philadelphia and international offices in London and Brussels (firm site; ABA Journal, Sept. 2024). It is a full-service Am Law 100 firm, not an IP boutique: pre-merger Troutman Pepper had roughly 1,100 lawyers and about $1.08B in 2023 gross revenue; the combined firm's 2023 revenue (~$1.57B) would have placed it near No. 28 on the Am Law 100 (The American Lawyer; ABA Journal). Chambers USA 2026 ranks the firm's national Intellectual Property group in Band 3, with a Band 1 Virginia ranking; the IP department is one of several practice strengths rather than the firm's identity.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's own practice description and third-party guides describe a full-lifecycle IP practice — procurement, prosecution, monetization, enforcement — with technical depth across life sciences and pharmaceuticals, computer software, electrical/mechanical and consumer products, medical devices, and media/entertainment (Chambers USA 2026; IAM Patent 1000 2026). IAM Patent 1000 recognized the national IP practice and 13 individual attorneys in 2026, praising "the breadth of its technical experience"; Managing IP named seven IP Stars in 2025. Litigation is notably strong in Section 337 / ITC work — partner William Belanger is a former attorney advisor at the ITC — and in post-grant USPTO proceedings. The tracked docket reflects this breadth: solar/energy hardware (Shoals), voice/AI software (Cerence), semiconductor and display technology (Mianyang BOE v. Samsung Display), biosimilars/pharma (Amgen v. Amneal), and financial-services patent defense (Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One).

Side preference. Of the 18 tracked matters the firm appears on 8 plaintiff side and 10 defendant side — essentially bidirectional, with no NPE/PAE specialization. The role profile is the more important signal: appearances are overwhelmingly supporting rather than first-chair (17 tracked "counsel"-type roles, 5 as local counsel, against a smaller number of lead-counsel designations). In several matters — Centripetal Networks v. Cisco, SoundClear v. Google, Cerence v. Amazon in the Eastern District of Texas — the firm is listed in the local-counsel/support capacity alongside out-of-state lead firms. It does serve as true lead counsel on select plaintiff-side enforcement campaigns, most visibly Shoals Technologies v. Voltage, where it stepped in as successor counsel. Clients are predominantly operating companies and manufacturers, plus universities and technology licensors, not assertion vehicles.

Notable matters. The standout tracked result is Shoals Technologies Group v. Voltage, LLC (M.D.N.C. and ITC): the firm secured a $96,382,050 jury verdict on August 26, 2026 — the full amount requested — including a willful-infringement finding, plus an injunction, following an ITC ALJ initial determination of a Section 337 violation (Feb. 2026), a Commission final determination of violation (June 2026), and denial of institution on multiple IPRs against the asserted patents (firm announcements; SEC filing). The overall Shoals campaign is genuinely mixed, however: Voltage has publicly reported an earlier ITC investigation terminating with a finding of no violation (Jan. 2025) and a separate final determination that its successor product does not infringe, and has asserted a district-court finding that Shoals breached a prosecution-bar agreement. The firm also represents Cerence Operating Company as plaintiff against Amazon in consolidated EDTX actions and ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1504 (2026), and appeared for Cisco (local counsel) in Centripetal Networks v. Cisco, and for Capital One and Amneal on the defense side. (I was unable to independently verify the disposition of the Centripetal and Capital One matters within this review; the firm's role in each was as counsel/local counsel, not lead trial counsel.)

PTAB / IPR practice and key partners. This is a substantive rather than incidental part of the practice: the firm states it has handled more than 100 IPRs, PGRs, ex parte reexaminations, reissues, interferences, and derivation proceedings, representing both petitioners and patent owners, and says it was named by Docket Navigator as one of the top U.S. firms in PTAB matters (firm practice page). It maintains an ongoing "Patents: Post-Grant" podcast and client-advisory series on discretionary denial, Fintiva/Sotera stipulations, and IPR estoppel. Prominent IP litigation/post-grant names reliably sourced from the firm site, Chambers, and IAM include Charles S. Baker (Texas; the most frequent tracked attorney, 5 appearances, including Cerence), William D. Belanger (Massachusetts; Chambers Band 4, IAM, led the Shoals matter, former ITC attorney advisor, firm Policy Committee), Andrew P. Zappia (post-grant/PTAB practice leader), and Mark Hannemann (New York; IAM Patent 1000 Silver). Other ranked practitioners include Puja Patel Lea, Steven Trybus, Charles Phipps, Gregory Len, and Christopher Forstner (a former Capital One chief IP counsel), with Nicholas Gallo, Bryan Smith, Dustin Weeks, and Gunnar Leinberg active in post-grant work.

Sources: troutman.com (practice pages and firm announcements, 2025–2026); Chambers USA 2026 (Intellectual Property department and individual profiles); IAM Patent 1000 2025–2026; Managing IP IP Stars 2025; ABA Journal and The American Lawyer (merger coverage, Sept. 2024); Law360 and USITC press releases (Cerence/Amazon, Inv. No. 337-TA-1504); SEC Form 10-Q, Shoals Technologies Group (June 30, 2026); PACER Monitor docket for Cerence Operating Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00372 (E.D. Tex.). Firm size and revenue figures are drawn from pre- and post-merger trade-press reporting and were not independently audited here.