Wolf Greenfield

I'll research the firm's profile, practice, and tracked cases before writing.

Wolf Greenfield — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. is an intellectual-property boutique headquartered at 600 Atlantic Avenue in Boston, with additional offices in New York and Washington, DC. Founded in 1927, it describes itself as one of the ten largest US firms devoted exclusively to IP law, with roughly 150–160 legal professionals; Vault lists the firm at 100–150 attorneys (2024) and characterizes it as an "IP powerhouse" and a midsize, IP-focused shop rather than a general-practice BigLaw firm. I found no verified AmLaw 100/200 ranking for the firm — it is best described as a leading East Coast IP boutique. Chambers USA 2026 ranks it Band 2 for Intellectual Property in Massachusetts and Band 3 nationwide for Patent Trial and Appeal Board work (which the firm's own announcement characterizes as a top-15 national PTAB ranking); Legal 500 US 2026 recognizes it nationally in ITC patent litigation and patent prosecution.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's practice is technically dense: it states that more than 90% of its practitioners hold science or engineering degrees and nearly 70% hold advanced degrees. Its industry groups — Electrical & Computer Technologies, Biotechnology/Pharmaceutical, Chemical & Materials, and Mechanical Technologies — map onto a litigation docket spanning software and consumer electronics, wireless/telecom protocols and network architectures, life sciences and medical devices, and mechanical/electromechanical systems. Chambers singles out the litigation team's depth in life sciences; the firm also touts a substantial ITC practice (it continues to represent Lenovo in a multi-patent ITC investigation) and Federal Circuit appellate work.

Side preference. On the tracked docket the firm appears slightly more often for defendants (3) than plaintiffs (2), and it has acted as lead counsel in two of the five matters — a small sample that should be read with caution. Substantively, Wolf Greenfield is a two-sided IP shop: it litigates for both patent owners/asserting parties and accused infringers, and its prosecution-and-counseling base means its client roster skews toward operating companies (Sony, Wayfair, Lenovo, Bose, Infineon), life-sciences innovators, and research institutions (MIT, Harvard, Memorial Sloan Kettering) rather than NPE/PAE plaintiffs. Nothing in the source material supports a characterization of the firm as a volume NPE-side filer.

Notable tracked matters and outcomes. The most consequential tracked case is Ford Motor Co. v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (with MIT licensee Ethanol Boosting Systems), listed for Wolf Greenfield on the defendant side with John L. Strand as of counsel. The IPR campaign — filed by Ford in 2019–2020 over dual-fuel/engine-knock patents — produced PTAB final written decisions in November 2023 invalidating the challenged claims, which the Federal Circuit affirmed in a precedential December 23, 2025 decision (Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., Nos. 2024-1381/1382/1383), also holding that the Board's delay in reconsidering institution was unreviewable under § 314(d). Public coverage of the IPRs attributes Ford's representation to Alston & Bird, so I could not independently verify from open sources the specific scope of Wolf Greenfield's role; that attribution should be treated as drawn from the case list rather than confirmed reporting. The other named tracked case is LifeNet Health v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (defendant side; Scott A. McKeown as of counsel), a life-sciences/medical-device dispute whose outcome I could not verify from the sources searched.

PTAB/IPR practice. Post-grant work is the firm's most visible national strength. Chambers ranks it Band 3 nationwide for PTAB and individually ranks Scott A. McKeown and Elisabeth H. Hunt for post-grant proceedings. McKeown, who joined the firm's DC office and now leads its post-grant practice, is a founding director of the PTAB Bar Association and reports having handled a very large volume of PTAB matters (the firm's profile states more than 500 since 2012, including matters with over $500 million at stake); he is also the author of PatentsPostGrant.com and was named Managing IP's "Outstanding PTAB Litigator" in 2020. The firm states it was named a top IPR firm for a ninth consecutive year and reports Patexia recognition for McKeown in the top 1% of PTAB and Federal Circuit practitioners (2023–2025) — figures that trace to firm/industry-vendor sources rather than independent court data.

Practice leaders. Gregory F. Corbett is the head of the litigation group and Chambers-ranked for IP in Massachusetts, with a technology and software focus; Scott A. McKeown leads post-grant/PTAB; C. Hunter Baker is Chambers-ranked for life sciences and medical IP; and John L. Strand is a senior/of-counsel figure in complex patent appeals (notably the MIT/Ford campaign). Robert Walat is the firm's President and Managing Partner. Individual ranking bands and titles above are taken from Chambers USA 2026 and the firm's own site; other attorney counts and accolades could not be independently verified.