IHatePatent Trolls
Patents
Litigations
Representatives
PTAB
Resources
SearchAdmin
  1. Home
  2. /Representatives
  3. /Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs

Counsel registry

Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs

8 case appearances — 1 as plaintiff counsel · 7 as defendant counsel.

Attorneys

  • Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.8
  • Matthew M. Lubozynski5
  • Matthew Mahoney Lubozynski2
  • Emma Mansberg Weintraub1

Roles

  • local counsel14
  • counsel of record2

Cases (8)

  • Δ defendantFlexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. [defendant not confirmed]Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. · local counsel
  • Δ defendantFlexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc.Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. · counsel of record
  • Δ defendantFlexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. et al.Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. · local counsel
  • Δ defendantFlexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. et al.Matthew M. Lubozynski · local counsel
  • Δ defendantFlexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. et al.Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. · local counsel
  • Δ defendantFlexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brothers Industries (U.S.A.), Inc.Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. · local counsel
  • π plaintiffHydraFacial LLC v. Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al.Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. · local counsel
  • Δ defendantHydraFacial LLC v. Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al.Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. · local 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.

  • How patent trolls operate (and why the business model works)

    A junk patent generates settlement income exactly the same way as a strong one, because nobody pays $1M to test a $200k demand. The mechanics matter because the failure modes — what makes assertion campaigns expensive or risky for the troll — are exactly where defendants find leverage.

  • eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (2006)

    Pre-eBay, an injunction was a kill switch a patent holder could threaten. Post-eBay, the worst is monetary damages — and for an NPE that wants license fees anyway, the four-factor test usually fails on the irreparable-harm prong.

  • 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.

  • The America Invents Act (2011)

    The AIA was the structural reform that gave defendants modern tools — IPR, broader prior art, joinder limits. The unfinished work is cost: AIA didn't make defense free, it made defense possible.

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.