Nimble, Focused and Experienced.

We are versatile and multifaceted. We keep our perspectives global and across diverse technologies and disciplines. But, we are intensely focused on winning intellectual property cases for our clients. That is all we do and we do it well.

We are highly selective in whom we represent and how we represent them. We are not for everyone, and may not be a good fit for every case. We are bluntly upfront with our potential and actual clients. When we do agree to take on a matter, however, we are fully committed to it and align our interests with those of our clients.

We believe that being big and diversified may be good for law firm economics, but being smart, focused and well-prepared is much better for clients. We are big enough to do our work well, but small enough to maintain our focus, quality control and selectivity. Because we are not bloated, we are able to transition quickly to adapt and stay ahead in the ever-changing world of intellectual property.

Learn more about us by clicking below:

  • We are highly experienced, intensely focused and exceedingly nimble

    We have dedicated our entire legal careers focusing on intellectual property litigation and problem solving for our clients. We were exposed to the culture of jury trials and got to try cases very early and often in our careers.

    Litigating and trying intellectual property cases and advising clients on intellectual property litigation and licensing are all we do, and we are very good at what we do.

    At the outset, we evaluate and prepare each case assuming that it will be tried to a jury. We focus on the facts, legal issues and themes necessary for the trial, instead of creating unnecessary discovery battles and generating billable hours.

    We make sure we have enough firepower, experience and savvy to fight the biggest and most protracted battles for our clients but choose to be small, nimble and powerful to obtain the best results.

  • We are zealous about doing our cases efficiently, expeditiously and ethically

    It is in our DNA to litigate intellectual property cases in an efficient and cost-effective manner because we are used to representing our clients on result-based billing arrangements. We are able to distinguish issues that have meaningful impact on trial from satellite disputes that only cause unnecessary delays and expenses. Our clients who hire us on an hourly basis also benefit because we approach all of our cases the same way.

    When you hire us, you are not paying for training inexperienced associates or getting commercial litigators up to speed on nuances and often-hidden dangers in intellectual property litigation. We hit the ground running with our extensive experience in intellectual property litigation, trial, arbitration, mediation and appeal in courts and other tribunals across the country.

  • It's all about you, the client

    We are totally focused on the needs of our clients in their use of intellectual property as a critical business asset. We look at each client as a long-term business partner. We ask our clients to stay fully engaged in their matters and demand that they participate in the decision-making process throughout our representation.

    We also offer billing arrangements that are flexible and keyed to client needs and business objectives so that the risks and benefits from our representation are equally shared between the lawyers and the client.

    We were early adopters of contingent fee and other alternative, incentive-based billing arrangements for both plaintiff and defendant IP litigation well before they became a marketing slogan for many law firms. While other firms have used them to complement their traditional billable hour practice, we have lived them for more than 20 years.

    We have also evaluated over 1,000 potential intellectual property cases from Fortune 100 companies to individual inventors over the past 20 years. We then put our money where our mouth is by litigating cases carefully selected from these 1,000 potential cases on alternative fee arrangements with much success.

    We are compensated based on results, not the process, because we don’t rely on a pyramid-based hourly billing model that encourages creating busy work for the sake of law firm revenues. For each case, we work with our client closely to offer a billing arrangement that fits our client’s business needs and objectives.

  • We know what works and what doesn't

    The founding partners formed this firm in March 2015, after spending more than 70 collective years at a nationally known firm with one of the biggest IP litigation and trial practices in the country.

    We worked on some of the biggest, highest-profile and most controversial intellectual property cases of our time. We worked on both sides of intellectual property disputes for a wide variety of clients. We also were the trailer blazers and innovators in the alternative fee representations for plaintiffs and defendants.

    We have evaluated nearly 1,000 potential IP cases on behalf of many Fortune 500 corporations, medium-sized companies, emerging technology companies, venture capital and private equity firms, inventors and inventor-owned companies. We carefully selected cases that we deemed meritorious and helped assert, defend and monetize our clients’ IP rights in those cases on a myriad of alternative billing arrangements.

    We were highly successful and our success spawned many imitators. We did not always win. But, we have the battle scars to remind us what did and did not work.

    In short, we know what works and what does not work in court, at the negotiating table, in the boardrooms and in the public sentiments. When you hire us, you hire a closely knit and highly experienced team with a long track record of success so that you will not be the test case to try out a “novel” strategy that may only serve to increase revenues for the lawyers.

  • "Alternative billing arrangements" – More than just a marketing slogan

    For some matters, a traditional hourly billing model fits the needs of our clients. We offer the hourly billing arrangement at rates that are fair and commensurate with our experience and ability. For many matters involving intellectual property disputes, however, alternative billing arrangements offer many benefits to clients. For one, intellectual property lawsuits are very expensive, both in attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket litigation expenses. They are also often unpredictable and risky.

    We offer alternative billing arrangements such as a contingent fee, a hybrid fee, a fixed fee, a result-based success or incentive fee or a combination of one or more of these arrangements so that our client and our firm share alike the benefits and risks inherent in any litigation. Under the traditional hourly billing model coupled with the traditional pyramid-shaped law firm partnership structure, the client bears all of the burdens, risks and downside and the lawyer reaps the benefit of the bloated process and none of the downside.

    If our representation is not successful, we will not be fully compensated for our efforts and time or, in some cases, not compensated at all. If we obtain outstanding results for our clients, we are willing to wait until such results are obtained and then share in the upside with our clients.

    No matter what billing arrangement is best for our clients, we approach each case with the same efficient result-driven approach to do what is necessary to win the case, not to maximize revenues for the firm. Unlike law firms that rely solely on the traditional hourly billing model that rewards hours billed and not necessarily results achieved, our lawyers have spent the majority of their careers using alternative billing models that focus on results achieved.

    Listed below are some of the alternative billing models that we have successfully used for both plaintiffs and defendants. We are willing to discuss these and any other alternative billing arrangements that fairly allocate the reward and risk between our firm and our clients.

    • Contingent Fee Representation

      Under this arrangement, we receive a fixed percentage of recoveries or other benefits received by the client in connection with our representation instead of getting paid on an hourly billing basis.

      Most of our clients pay out-of-pocket litigation expenses under contingent fee or other alternative fee arrangements. Because these expenses can be significant in some cases, we have worked with our clients on modifications of the arrangements on the cost components or assisted them on third-party financing of these litigation expenses.

    • Fixed Fee Representation

      Litigation, by its very nature, is unpredictable and risky. Litigation also goes through numerous phases before the final resolution, which leads to sharp increases or decreases in monthly hourly billings. Fixed fees are designed to provide predictability in cash flow for the client and impose accountability on the lawyer so that unnecessary work is not done for the sake of doing the work and, of course, generating billable hourly fees.

      At the outset of each matter, we learn about the client’s business, objectives, cash flow considerations and expectations to tailor the terms to fit the client’s needs and interests. Under typical fixed fee arrangements, our firm would agree to handle a matter for a fixed amount of fees paid upfront or, often, on a monthly or quarterly basis. We have also handled a fixed fee matter by combining the traditional hourly billing arrangement with a monthly or quarterly cap on our fees so that the client can properly budget litigation expenses and forecast quarterly or annual earnings for the company.

    • Hybrid Fee Representation

      Under a hybrid or partial-contingent fee arrangement, we receive a reduced fixed fee or a portion of our hourly fee with a smaller contingent fee percentage. This billing arrangement offers the most flexibility for the client and our firm to tailor our fee arrangement to suit the client’s business needs and interests. It reduces the risks to the lawyer and client and provides the client with a larger portion of recoveries while maintaining the alignment of the interests of the lawyer and the client.

    • Result-Based Incentive Fee Representation

      This arrangement is based on “success” or “incentive” fees being triggered upon favorable outcomes at pre-determined milestones. This approach is typically combined with lowered hourly billing or fixed fee arrangements.

      For example, this arrangement can be used for trademark cases where obtaining or defeating a motion for preliminary injunction alters the trajectory of the lawsuit. Our firm will be paid a reduced hourly or fixed fee for our work with “success” or “incentive” bonus fees paid based on the outcome of certain milestones such as obtaining (for plaintiff) or defeating (for defendant) a preliminary injunction motion. This can also be used in patent cases in district court lawsuits and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board where the local patent or agency rules provide built-in milestones.

    • Reverse Contingent Fee Arrangement

      This is a contingent fee arrangement for defense clients. Under this arrangement, our fee is based on a percentage of the reduction of the total exposure to the client in a lawsuit. We analyze and agree with our client on the likely exposure that the client may face in the lawsuit, including the costs of defense. The reverse contingent fee is a percentage of the difference between the total likely exposure and the total litigation expenses for the client. Like other alternative fee arrangements, the reverse contingent fee can be combined with other arrangements to suit the client’s needs.

  • Litigation financing – when you can't go it alone

    We have extensive experience with litigation financing companies as a result of our litigation success in prior matters. These entities, while different in their approach or focus, generally provide funding for litigation expenses using the litigation claims as assets. Some of them also offer a way to moderate the post-trial risks after successful trial outcomes by providing capital to the client during post-trial motion practice or, more often, on appeal.

    Our experience and relationship with these funding entities have proven to be a valuable asset to our clients. As an early adopter and a leader in crafting and negotiating alternative billing arrangements, we have worked with most of the leading litigation financing companies in the world to negotiate and structure deals with them on behalf of our clients. Our past success provides credibility to our clients for future matters that may be presented to litigation funding companies.

    Litigation financing comes at a price for the client and may not be suitable for all clients or matters. But, for certain cases, access to third party litigation finance capital can be invaluable no matter the size or financial condition of our clients. It can provide the “staying power” necessary for small-cap companies embroiled in protracted and expensive litigation. Even for the biggest corporate clients, litigation financing provides liquidity, cash flow stability and predictability.

  • We draw on our relationships that span diverse technologies and disciplines

    Our experience and work over two decades have allowed us to forge relationships with a wide variety of professionals in diverse technologies and disciplines around the world. They include patent prosecution attorneys, foreign attorneys, technical and financial consultants in private practice and academia, patent monetization and brokerage firms, intellectual property auction and exchange firms, litigation funding companies, private equity or venture capital firms, defensive patent acquisition entities, patent aggregators, economists, lobbyists, public relations professionals and attorneys specializing in other areas. These relationships and contacts allow us to represent our clients effectively and creatively, and help us craft unique and creative resolutions and deals for our clients.