IHatePatent Trolls
Patents
Litigations
Representatives
PTAB
Resources
SearchAdmin
  1. Home
  2. /Representatives
  3. /Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease

Counsel registry

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease

7 case appearances — 3 as plaintiff counsel · 4 as defendant counsel.

Attorneys

  • William H. Oldach III6
  • Rex W. Miller II6
  • Michael V. Messinger6
  • Liana R. Hollingsworth3
  • Michael J. Garvin3
  • Aaron M. Williams3
  • Alycia N. Broz3
  • Emily J. Taft3
  • Igor D. Ozeruga3
  • Mitchell A. Tobias2

Roles

  • pro hac vice16
  • back-up counsel11
  • lead counsel8
  • local counsel5
  • co-counsel1
  • counsel1
  • local/trial counsel1

Cases (7)

  • π plaintiffBJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCMichael V. Messinger · lead counsel
  • π plaintiffBJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCMichael V. Messinger · lead counsel
  • π plaintiffBJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCMichael V. Messinger · lead counsel
  • Δ defendantBJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCWilliam H. Oldach III · lead counsel
  • Δ defendantIntellectual Ventures I & II LLC v. Fifth Third Bancorp et al.Glenn V. Whitaker · local/trial counsel
  • Δ defendantSam's West, Inc. et al. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.William H. Oldach III · lead counsel
  • Δ defendantWalmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.Michael V. Messinger · lead counsel

Further reading

  • Patent reviews: IPR, PGR, and reexamination

    Suing in district court to invalidate a patent costs $3-5M and takes years. The USPTO's post-grant review system does it for $200-500k and 12-18 months. For a defendant facing a weak patent, the choice is usually obvious.

  • IPR estoppel: the trade-off behind the cheapest invalidity tool

    File your strongest art, file it well — or don't file at all if your strongest grounds aren't patents and publications. Estoppel is what makes IPR powerful for the system and dangerous for the defendant who underprepares.

  • 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.

  • What to do if you get a patent demand letter

    A patent demand letter is a request for money, not a court order. The plaintiff's leverage is your fear; preparation removes it.

  • 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.

All resources →

Test yourself

How well do you actually know patent law?

Ten multiple-choice questions, about 3 minutes. Covers § 101, § 102, § 103, IPR, claim construction, and the landmark cases. Anonymous, no sign-up. The per-question accuracy data behind the scenes identifies the doctrines defendants get wrong most often — see if you do better than average.

Take the quiz→
IHatePatent Trolls

An open defense for patent defendants. AI-generated invalidity dossiers and a public litigation database — so the next defendant doesn’t have to start from scratch.

HomePatentsLitigationsAssertersCorrespondentsResourcesQuizAboutContactPrivacyAdmin

Not legal advice

All content on this site — including patent summaries, prior-art and obviousness analyses, derivative works, litigation summaries, and any sample response letters — is generated by AI, may contain errors or omissions, and is provided for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing on this site is legal advice and nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Do not rely on this content to make legal decisions, respond to demand letters, or take any action in pending or threatened litigation. Consult a licensed patent attorney before acting.

Not every patent holder is a “troll”

Not all companies that litigate their patents are patent trolls. A patent troll — technically a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), sometimes called a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) — is a person or entity that acquires patents (often broad or vague ones) not to produce goods, but to extort licensing fees or settlements from companies through threats of infringement litigation. Many patent owners enforce their patents legitimately to protect real products, technologies, and research investments they have actually made. The analyses on this site are tools for evaluating any patent assertion on its merits — not blanket accusations against every patentee.

IHatePatentTrolls is a TheDataProject.AI platform. Patent data sourced from public records and user contributions.

© 2026 oconnorventures.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved.